Senate

Subject: Regulation XIV, Student Appeals against Programme Board or Module Board decisions: Reports for 2002, 2003 and 2004

Origin Unconfirmed Minutes of Learning and Teaching Committee

on 10 February 2005

Considered a report on the operation of the appeals procedure over the previous three years. Thanks were due to Chris Dunbobbin for compiling the report and accompanying data. One of the points arising from the data was that there was a greater propensity for ‘Black and Minority Ethnic’ (BME) students to appeal than their white counterparts.

Discussion focussed on the issues identified in section 3.

Students undertaking reassessments without tuition

The Committee agreed that students who opted for reassessment without tuition were not entitled to anything more than basic administrative support and supported the suggestion that steps be taken to ensure that they were explicitly advised to this effect. It was noted however that in practice it could be difficult for staff to enforce this in relation to project and dissertation modules and it might be helpful to investigate the practicalities further with the departments where appeals had arisen because of uncertainty over the support that could be expected. It was remarked that reassessment should not be allowed without tuition if it was unrealistic to expect students to cope without it and it should be possible for departments to include a statement in a module specification that reassessment in that module was only permitted with tuition.

Problems with project or dissertation supervision

This issue would be discussed under the Report of the Departmental Reviews Group.

Guidance on marking schemes for multiple-choice examinations

It was agreed it should be compulsory for all multiple-choice examination papers to include guidance on the marking scheme in the rubric at the head of the paper.

International students returning to their home country for long periods during the academic year

The Committee felt that it would not always be appropriate to take a tough line towards students who had temporarily ‘disappeared’ and that it was reasonable if the appeals procedure came into play to judge each case on its merits. In order to reduce the incidence of it happening, it was suggested that ELSU be asked to inform international students attending its courses about the appropriate procedures to follow should they have to return home for some reason during the year, or that a member of Registry be invited along to explain the procedures.

Author – Robert Bowyer

Date – January 2005

Subject: Regulation XIV: Student Appeals against Programme or Module Board Decisions, Report for years 2002, 2003 and 2004

Origin: Chris Dunbobbin, Assistant Registrar, Student Office and
Jennifer Nutkins, Academic Registrar

1. Background

The current Regulation XIV came into force in March 2002, following amendments proposed by the Academic Registrar (AR) in a report on the operation of the regulation in Summer and Autumn 2001. This report includes appeals considered in the 2002, 2003 and 2004 calendar years.

2. Analysis of Appeals

An analysis of appeals is provided below, and in Appendices I, II and III. Given the relatively small number of appeals, care should be taken not to overstate relatively minor differences between the characteristics of the appellant population, and that of the total student population for each year*. Data are provided by Department as well as aggregated for the University for information. However, given the small number of students involved in each department, it does not seem reasonable to draw any conclusions from the figures presented in this format.

2.1 Incidence of Regulation XIV Appeals against Total Population (Appendix I)

In total, 176 appeals were submitted in 2002 (1.2% of the total population), 112 in 2003 (0.7%), and 144 in 2004 (0.8%). The profile of appellants broadly matched that of the total population, but some points are noteworthy:

· In 2002, males were more likely to appeal (1.5% did so, compared to just 0.7% of females). However, the figures thereafter stay closer to the male/female ratio in the total population, with males slightly more likely to appeal in 2003, and females slightly more likely to appeal in 2004.

· In all three years, students from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups were more likely to appeal than their white counterparts. 1.8% did so in 2002 (compared to 1.2% of white students), 1.4% did so in 2003 (compared to 0.5% of white students), and 1.6% did so in 2004 (compared to 0.7% of white students).

· In 2002 and 2004, students with a disability were more likely to appeal. However, this trend was reversed in 2003, and small numbers are involved here.

· In all three years, international students (by fee status) were more likely to appeal than home students.

· In all three years, students aged 21 and over at the beginning of their programme of study were slightly more like to appeal than those aged under 21 on entry.

2.2 Analysis of Appeal Outcomes (Appendix II)

In all three years, the majority of appeals were dismissed at the first stage of the appeals process, by the AR (63.1% in 2002, 75% in 2003, and 66.7% in 2004). A similar proportion of appeals in all three years were dismissed by a Dean (7.4% in 2002, 6.2% in 2003, and 6.9% in 2004). In 2002, a quarter (25.6%) of all appeals were ultimately upheld by a Dean. This figure fell to 16.1% in 2003, when a larger proportion of appeals were rejected by the AR, but increased again to 21.5% in 2004. Only a very small number of appeals in each year progressed as far as the Academic Appeal Committee (AAC); 2 in 2002 (both upheld), 1 in 2003 (dismissed), and 4 in 2004 (2 upheld, 2 dismissed).

The most common reasons for the dismissal of appeals were lack of evidence, and cases based on late disclosure of impaired performance for which good cause was not established. The majority of successful appeals related to impaired performance where the student was able to establish good cause for not submitting a timely claim with a small number relating to errors on the part of academic departments. In relation to the former category, sensitive personal circumstances and mental health difficulties were treated sympathetically.

The analysis in Appendix II indicates that appeal outcomes did not vary significantly depending on the characteristics of appellants. The following points, however, are noteworthy:

In 2002 and 2003, appeals submitted by BME groups, and by international students were less likely to be dismissed by the AR, and more likely to be upheld by a Dean than those submitted by white and by home students. However, in the case of both characteristics, this picture was reversed in 2004.
In all three years, appeals submitted by Postgraduate (PG) students were less likely to be dismissed by the AR, and more likely to be upheld by a Dean. However, this pattern has become less pronounced (in 2002, just 26.9% of PG student appeals were dismissed by the AR, compared to 63.1% of all appeals. However, in 2004, 63.6% of appeals by PG students were dismissed by the AR, compared to 66.7% of all appeals).
It should be noted that the categories identified directly above (BME, international and postgraduate) are related given the make up of the student population.

3. Issues Arising from the Consideration of Appeals

A number of matters of general principle have been brought to light through appeals submitted under Regulation XIV.

3.1 Students undertaking reassessments without tuition

Several appeals arose through uncertainty about the extent to which students should receive academic and administrative support when undertaking reassessments without tuition, particularly in relation to project and dissertation modules. It is suggested that steps are taken to ensure all students are explicitly advised that they will not be entitled to anything more than basic administrative support (i.e. provided with details of the work required, and deadline dates) if they opt for reassessment without tuition, and that assistance such as proof-reading of dissertation drafts will not be provided.

3.2 Problems (perceived or real) with project / dissertation supervision

A significant number of appeals (including three of the four cases considered by the AAC in 2004) related to the supervision of postgraduate and final year undergraduate projects and dissertations. Most frequently, the appeal was based on an allegation that the supervision was inadequate in some way. In several cases, the appellant claimed they had not raised the matter earlier because they were unaware that there was a mechanism for them to do so, or because they were concerned about the repercussions of making what was seen to be a complaint against a member of academic staff. The following actions are suggested:

The establishment of a Code of Practice on UG and PG Project / Dissertation supervision, to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of supervisor and student, including a mechanism for dealing with any perceived problems with the relationship.
Amending the Policy and Procedures on Impaired Performance to specifically state that perceived problems with project / dissertation supervision can constitute grounds for a claim.

3.3 Guidance on marking schemes for multiple-choice examinations

It emerged from a number of appeals that students were not always provided with clear advice on the marking scheme that would be applied to multiple-choice examinations. Where a scheme involves subtracting a quarter of a mark for an incorrect answer, students might legitimately adopt a different strategy than if no such penalty is applied. It is therefore suggested that it should be compulsory for all multiple-choice examination papers to include guidance on the marking scheme in the rubric at the head of the paper.

3.4 International students returning to their home country for long periods during the academic year

A number of appeals were submitted by international students, who for reasons normally related to illness (their own, or that of family members back home) left Loughborough for periods of up to 6 months, during the academic year, to return home, without applying for leave of absence, impaired performance, or even telling anyone within their Department or elsewhere within the University. The success of such appeals depended on the particular circumstances of each case, and whether the student had good cause for leaving abruptly, and remaining incommunicado for an extended period. However, wider issues were raised about how the University keeps track of its (particularly international) students, especially those residing in University accommodation. It is suggested that consideration is given to reviewing, and if appropriate, standardising procedures in Academic Departments and Halls of Residence for chasing and/or noting absent students.

* Note on Total Population

The total student population for the purposes of this report includes all students who had the opportunity to appeal against a Module or Programme board decision in each year.

· For undergraduates, the total population includes students considered by a Programme Board in the Summer, and those considered by a Programme Board following the Special Assessment Period (SAP). Those students who were considered by Programme Boards in both Summer and SAP were double-counted, as they could have appealed against the decisions of both Boards.