Academic Registry

Student Office

 

Proposed Changes to General Regulations for Taught Programmes

 

SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL/HOUSEKEEPING ISSUES

 

1.            Reduction of AD(T) Administrative Workload

 

1.1.           Objectives

 

1.1.1.        To reduce administrative workload on AD(T)s in recognition of the comments made by the QAA institutional auditors.

 

1.1.2.        To retain AD(T) approval where programme regulation and other academic issues are concerned.

 

1.2.           Proposals

 

1.2.1.        Appointment of Programme Boards – it is proposed that the Academic Registrar (or nominee) takes responsibility for ensuring that Programme Boards are appointed in accordance with regulations.

 

1.2.2.        Approval of deferred reassessment – it is proposed that the relevant HoD takes responsibility for approving deferral (see para 4.2.1).

 

1.2.3.        Approval of Leave of Absence after week 10, or where a student has outstanding reassessment rights – it is proposed that the HoD takes responsibility for approval. Consistency will be improved by, taking into account the assessment deadlines for individual students/modules (see para 3.2.2. below).

 

1.2.4.        Waiver of Programme Regulations – it is proposed that the AD(T)s retain responsibility for approving waivers to programme regulations in the case of individual students.

 

1.2.5.        Approval of credit transfer/disregard on internal transfer – it is proposed that this be delegated to HoDs (see para 3.2.1 below).

 

 

2.            Award of Lesser Qualifications

 

2.1.           Objectives

 

2.1.1.        To simplify the process of awarding lesser qualifications as a matter of course following termination of studies.

 

2.1.2.        To ensure that external examiners approve all lesser awards without the need for physical presence at non-finalist boards.

 

2.1.3.        To allow students the option of transferring programme prior to lesser awards being made (currently a number of finalist students each year are automatically awarded a DipHE at a Summer board which is then conferred at the Summer degree congregation, following which the students decides to transfer to the final year of another programme, invalidating the award).

 

2.1.4.        To ensure that the minimum number of students possible are returned to HESA as having left with no qualification (as per current policy approved by Senate).

 

2.1.5.        To clarify the requirements for the award of Diploma of Higher Education and Certificate of Higher Education.

 

2.2.           Proposals

 

2.2.1.        Introduce a new programme board decision – “Studies Terminated - eligible for lesser award subject to external programme assessor approval”.

 

2.2.2.        External examiners to be provided with all relevant information by academic department and asked to ratify the decision without attendance at the University.

 

2.2.3.        Students to be given the option to transfer credit to another programme (if available) prior to the lesser award being ratified by external examiner.

 

2.2.4.        Students to be returned to HESA as at 1 August as either continuing (probably in the majority of cases, given the timescales involved and the difficulty generally experienced in communicating with students during the Summer) or having received a lesser award (only when student has confirmed that they do not intend to transfer programme). Where a student confirms after 1 August that they do wish to take the lesser qualification, they will be returned as such in the following year’s HESA return.

 

2.2.5.        Change terminology for eligibility for a lesser award as follows:

 

2.2.5.1.              Diploma of Higher Education: Progress from Part B (note that this will mean the award of a DipHE with potentially only 100 credits in total in the case of eg direct 2nd year entrants)

2.2.5.2.              Certificate of Higher Education: Progress from Part A

 

3.            Credit Transfer/Disregard on Transfer of Programme and Leave of Absence

 

3.1.           Objectives

 

3.1.1.        To clarify the procedure for treatment of previous module assessments which could potentially be considered under the programme regulations of the new programme following transfer.

 

3.1.2.        To clarify the procedure for treatment of module registrations and component assessments when a student takes leave of absence prior to the completion of the module.

 

3.1.3.        To reduce the administrative workload on AD(T)s.

 

3.2.           Proposals

 

3.2.1.        On transfer of programme, ALL previous module assessments on the same Part to be disregarded except where HoD approves transfer of credit/module mark

 

3.2.2.        Treatment of existing module registration and assessments on granting of leave of absence to be determined as follows:

 

3.2.2.1.              If deadlines for coursework components amounting to less than 50% (weighted) of total module assessment (including exams) have passed prior to LOA request being made, then module is automatically expunged from record.

3.2.2.2.              If deadlines for coursework components amounting to 50% (weighted) or more of total module assessment (including exams) have passed prior to LOA request being made, then module cannot be deleted from record and Impaired Performance claim must be submitted if all assessments are not to be completed.

 

4.            Leave of Absence - Reassessment, Permitted Repeat Attempts

 

4.1.           Objectives

 

4.1.1.        To clarify the implications of a student taking leave of absence when that student has outstanding reassessment right.

 

4.1.2.        To clarify the implications of a student being granted leave of absence when that student has an outstanding permitted repeat attempt (resulting from a successful impaired performance claim).

 

4.2.           Proposals

 

4.2.1.        Approval of leave of absence by HoD automatically results in deferred reassessment where student has outstanding reassessment rights. As part of the approval process, the new reassessment date should be highlighted.

 

4.2.2.        Where a student has, as a result of an impaired performance claim, been permitted to repeat an assessment by a specified deadline, approval of leave of absence by HoD automatically results in an extension to that deadline. As part of the approval process, the new deadline should be highlighted. 

 

5.            Impaired Performance – “Further Work”

 

5.1.           Objectives

 

5.1.1.        To increase flexibility of impaired performance decisions, especially where an extension is required.

 

5.2.           Proposals

 

5.2.1.        Empower Programme and Progress Boards to decide that students who have submitted an impaired performance claim may resubmit their original piece of work with some further work for assessment as their permitted repeat attempt.

 

6.            Degree Classification Boundary – Remove Power to Raise by 3%

 

6.1.           Objectives

 

6.1.1.        To reduce the potential for Regulation XIV appeals.

 

6.2.           Proposals

 

6.2.1.        Retain the powers to lower classification boundaries by up to 3% but remove the option of raising the boundaries. In practice this is hardly ever used and, if used, will almost certainly result in appeals and potentially legal challenge from all the students affected.

 

7.            External Examiners

 

7.1.           Objectives

 

7.1.1.        To enable Programme Boards to make awards without the external examiner being present where students numbers are limited and there are no controversial cases.

 

7.1.2.        To reduce the administrative workload on departments and ensure good relationships with externals.

 

7.1.3.        To clarify current custom and practice and to ensure consistency.

 

7.1.4.        To develop criteria to determine the suitability of potential external examiners prior to appointment

 

7.2.           Proposals

 

7.2.1.        The waiver of the requirement for the external to be present is currently approved by the Academic Registrar on an ad hoc basis as requested by departments and is based on the following criteria.

 

7.2.1.1.        That the external receives copies of all documentation before and after the board and signs the pass list etc.

7.2.1.2.        That the external agrees to the non-attendance proposal.

7.2.1.3.        That there are no students under consideration who would be affected by the setting of a degree classification boundary.

7.2.1.4.        That there are no impaired performance claims to be considered.

7.2.1.5.        That there are no students under consideration for whom condonement is a possibility.

 

It is proposed that, where all these conditions are met, the external examiner presence requirement will be waived as a matter of course (approved by the HoD). Under any other circumstances, the Academic Registrar should continue to consider waivers.

 

8.            Non-Programme Undergraduates (Socrates etc) Reassessment Rights

 

8.1.           Objectives

 

8.1.1.        To provide a framework for students not on formal programmes to be eligible for reassessment (as they do not “progress” or “receive and award” at present, these students do not have any formal reassessment rights).

 

8.2.           Proposals

 

8.2.1.        Permit non-programme undergraduate students to take reassessment in any module in which they have failed to gain credit.

 

9.            Postgraduate Project Referral

 

9.1.           Objectives

 

9.1.1.        To clarify the regulations and remove the potential for confusion regarding the treatment of failed projects.

 

9.1.2.        To clarify the regulations regarding submission of new pieces of work.

 

9.2.           Proposals

 

9.2.1.        Cease to use “referral” terminology, clarifying that any postgraduate module mark below 50% is a fail.

 

9.2.2.        For failed project modules, permit students to resubmit the same piece of work with revisions for reassessment providing that they have achieved at least 40% in the first attempt.

 

9.2.3.        For all other failed modules, a new piece of work must be submitted in all cases (except where impaired performance impacts).

 

10.       Permitted Exceptions for BEng/MEng (GRUA Appendix 3)

 

10.1.       Objectives

 

10.1.1.    To simplify the general regulations in line with latest guidance from accrediting bodies.

 

10.2.       Proposals

 

10.2.1.    Delete GRUA Appendix 3 for students where the first attempt mark only is counted towards degree classification (ie students entering in 2005/6 and beyond). This was originally created to satisfy the requirements of accrediting bodies. The accrediting bodies have since indicated that restrictions need not be placed on qualifications awarded to resit students provided only first attempt marks are used in determined degree classification etc.

  

11.       Publish Unfixed Semester One Undergraduate Marks – Moderation to Take Place Prior to Programme Board

 

11.1.       Background

 

Senate June 2004 (minute 04/66.1):

“Senate RESOLVED to accept the recommendations as presented in the report and to forward the report to Council.”

Recommendation 6 of Working Group on the Structure of the Academic Year:

“The requirement to send module marks to external examiners at the end of Semester One should be abolished.  External examiners would have the opportunity to moderate the marks as part of the end of year Programme Board procedures. Prior to the Boards the provisional nature of these marks should be further stressed to students.”

 

11.2.       Proposals

 

11.2.1.    Module marks to be moderated and approved by external examiners prior to Programme Board.

 

11.2.2.    Marks released to students are flagged as provisional and subject to moderation.

 

11.2.3.    Moderation of marks downwards is clearly stated as not being grounds for Regulation XIV appeal

 

June 2005

Copyright (c) Loughborough University. All rights reserved.