UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

Wednesday 21 June 2017

1pm to 5pm

MINUTES(Unreserved)

Chair Professor Aletta Norval

Present Dr Andrews, Karen Bush, Zoe Garshong, Emma Hardy, Dr Luther, Professor Micklewright, Dr Penman, Professor Sliwa, Richard Stock, Professor Underwood, Josh Gulrajani, Andrew McIntosh

Apologies Professor Fox O’Mahony, Professor Roseneil, Professor Turton

Secretary Wendy Clifton-Sprigg

In attendance

Linda Hanna (for items 16 and 21b), Lucy Murray, Claire Nixon and Dave Stanbury (for item 12)

BUSINESS TAKEN WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Approved Without discussion, those items not already starred on the agenda or indicated at the meeting.

EC/172/17

MINUTES FROM THE MEETING HELD ON 29 MARCH 2017 (EC/17/33)

Resolved That the minutes be approved. EC/173/17

MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

None EC/174/17

REPORT ON CHAIR’S ACTION (EC/17/34)

Noted

CHAIR OF ACADEMIC QUALITY AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Approved To appoint Dr Penman as Chair of Academic Quality and Standards Committee and Professor Turton as Deputy Chair, with effect from January 2018.

EC/175/17

1

CHAIR’S VERBAL REPORT

Noted TEF resultsThe TEF2 outcomes had been released under embargo on 19 June and the University of Essex has been awarded Gold. This award was valid for up to three years. The outcomes would be made public on Thursday 22 June.

This was an extremely positive outcome for the University. The statement of findings confirmed that we perform exceptionally well within our benchmark group (based on student characteristics). The points highlighted by the TEF Panel were a positive endorsement that we were performing well across all the objectives set out in our Education Strategy.

The Chair thanked everyone who had contributed across the University, including the active collaboration of the Students’ Union.

EC/176/17

EC/177/17

EC/178/17

Student Voice Task and Finish GroupThe Group would provide an update to Education Committee in September and would present its final report in December. A Task and Finish Group had been established to review the operation of Staff Student Liaison Committees. The Students’ Union was also conducting a review of practice at other universities on collecting student feedback.

EC/179/17

Module Optionality Task and Finish GroupThe Module Optionality Task and Finish Group would continue to meet in 2017-18. Updated membership and terms of reference would be brought to the September meeting for approval.

EC/180/17

Date of next meetingThe Chair reminded members that there would be an additional meeting of Education Committee in September on 27 September 2017.

EC/181/17

PROPOSED EDUCATION ACTION PLAN 2017-18 (EC/17/35)

Received A paper prepared by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) and Vicky Poole (Project Manager) that presented the proposed Education Action Plan for 2017-18.

EC/182/17

Noted The Chair reported that minor amendments had been made to the Plan following a recent meeting of the University Steering Group.The Committee had discussed an earlier draft at its previous meeting.

Development of the Plan had benefitted from consultation, and the Committee was keen to build on this approach with wide and early consultation on the next Plan. It also noted that there were a number of actions that involved identifying and sharing good practice, and wanted to see a more systematic approach to this and to evaluation.

EC/183/17

EC/184/17

2

Resolved To recommend the Education Action Plan for 2017-18 to Senate for approval.

EC/185/17

EDUCATION ACTION PLAN 2016-17 – FINAL ASSURANCE REPORT (EC/17/36)

Received A paper prepared by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) and Vicky Poole (Project Manager) that presented the Assurance Report on the Education Action Plan for 2016-17.

EC/186/17

Noted The work on module optionality was ongoing. EC/187/17

DIGITAL, CREATIVE AND CULTURAL SUB-STRATEGY (EC/17/37)

Received A paper from Professor Lorna Fox O’Mahony (Executive Dean (Humanities)) that presented the proposed Digital, Creative and Cultural Sub-Strategy and Action Plan.

EC/188/17

Noted The Committee had considered a draft at an earlier meeting. EC/189/17

Resolved To recommend the Digital, Creative and Cultural Sub-Strategy and Action Plan to Senate for approval.

EC/190/17

UPDATE FROM THE RULES OF ASSESSMENT TASK AND FINISH GROUP (EC/17/38)

Received A paper from Professor Jackie Turton (Deputy Dean (Education) (Social Sciences)) and Wendy Clifton-Sprigg (Deputy Director of Academic Services) that provided an update on the early work undertaken by the Rules of Assessment Task and Finish Group.

EC/191/17

Noted The Group had had an initial discussion of one of the areas under its remit, which was the purpose of the first year and its contribution to the overall degree classification. The Group did not see significant benefit to students from changing the weighting of the first year and sought Education Committee’s view on how much further it should take its discussion on this issue. It was reported that a recent UUK survey showed that the University’s final degree algorithm was well within the norm for the sector. A few institutions, however, were reviewing the weighting of level 4.

There was little support from members for changing the weighting, noting the importance of the first year in supporting students’ transition into higher education. Nevertheless, the Committee recommended that Group should continue to monitor sector developments.

EC/192/17

EC/193/17

Education Committee noted the updated timeline for the Group’s work. The impact of any proposed changes to the rules of assessment would be modelled in advance and the Group would make recommendations on the phasing of the introduction of any changes.

EC/194/17

3

INTERIM REPORT FROM THE TASK AND FINISH GROUP ON THE OPERATION OF EXAM BOARDS (EC/17/39)

Received A paper from Dr David Penman (Deputy Dean (Education) (Science and Health)) and Wendy Clifton-Sprigg (Deputy Director of Academic Services) that provided an interim report from the Task and Finish Group on the Operation of Exam Boards. The Group had been established to consider issues related to the operation of exam boards and the extenuating circumstances procedure. The Committee noted the issues identified by the Group and the proposed high-level changes. The Group would develop, and continue to consult on, its detailed proposals during 2017-18. It brought forward for approval one minor change to the Assessment Policies relating to extenuating circumstances, which would introduce more consistency in the approach to requiring evidence from students.

EC/195/17

Noted A Lean Review would be undertaken in the autumn term with the aim to identify improvements to the operation and resourcing of exam boards.

The Committee discussed an issue that the Group had highlighted regarding the timing of resits and the impact on the amount of time that students had to take decisions before the start of the next academic year. It encouraged the Group to identify ways of improving the position for students but did not support bringing forward the timing of resit exams because of the negative impact on the academic year, and in particular on the ability of academics to conduct research and attend subject conferences.

EC/196/17

EC/197/17

Approved The Committee endorsed the work undertaken by the Task and Finish Group to date and agreed that it should continue to meet in 2017-18, and noted the following planned actions:

A trial of paperless exam boards in 2017-18, in a small number of departments, subject to making improvements to grids.

A Lean review of the operation of exam boards. That Academic Section and IT Services should take forward

work to improve the systems that support exam boards and in particular the presentation of exam board grids during 2017-18

That the Group should bring forward detailed proposals for operating a single-decision making body in departments for extenuating circumstances to the March 2018 meeting of Education Committee.

That a project mandate be developed for an online system for extenuating circumstances.

That with immediate effect for exam boards taking place in 2016-17, candidates would be discussed only by exception (in accordance with the guidance set out in EC/17/39).

EC/198/17

EC/199/17 EC/200/17

EC/201/17

EC/202/17 EC/203/17

The establishment of a Task and Finish Group to review the current EC/204/17

4

late submission arrangements and whether a single policy on late submission should be introduced for all taught students.

Resolved To recommend the amendment to the Assessment Policies, as set out in EC/17/39, to Senate for approval, with effect from 2017-18.

EC/205/17

REPORT ON TASK AND FINISH GROUP ON MARKING POLICY (EC/17/40)

Received A paper from Professor Jackie Turton (Deputy Dean (Education) (Social Sciences)) and Dr Emma Dollard (Quality and Policy Manager) that recommended changes to the Marking Policy and Assessment Policies, which had been developed following discussions by a Task and Finish Group; at AQSC; and in relation to the assessment feedback deadline, with Directors of Education and Faculty Education Committees.

EC/206/17

Noted In the case of some of the recommendations, Education Committee noted that there had been limited time for consultation with departments. It wanted to see further consideration of the recommendation on marking for GTAs and GLAs, particularly in relation to the GLA role. There was also concern about the rationale for the recommendations regarding second or double marking of first class/distinction level work, and the second marking of group work. It noted that the recommendation on group work had been formulated following a specific case where a student had requested second marking. The Committee was concerned whether the recommendation was proportionate.

The Group decided to recommend some changes to the Marking Policy to Senate and to refer others back for further consideration and consultation.

The Committee approved recommendations in relation to the following:

A new definition of moderation A requirement that departments include an explanation of key

assessment terms in their student handbooks The principle that staff should be prohibited from marking or

moderating the work of partners or close relatives; and from acting as moderator or second marker where a partner or close relative was the first marker

Clarification of the wording in the Assessment Policies relating to the deadline for the return of feedback to students

Other minor amendments to the Marking Policy

It asked the Task and Finish Group to consult further on the other recommendations and to report back to the next meeting.

EC/207/17

EC/208/17

EC/209/17 EC/210/17 EC/211/17

EC/212/17

EC/213/17

EC/214/17

Resolved That the following be recommended to Senate:

i) That the Marking Policy be amended, as set out in EC/215/17

5

Appendix A, with effect from 2017-18.

ii) That departments should ensure that they explain key assessment terms clearly to students and that there should be clear indication about whether moderation has taken place. Departments should also include a flowchart/or narrative text of their departmental process in their student handbooks.

iii) That the Assessment Policies be amended as follows, with effect from 2017-18:

Marking Turnaround Time - The expectation for the return of assessed work should be 20 working days, less wherever possible.  The 20 working days does not include Bank Holidays and any of the University’s Christmas closure period (which is usually considered to be six days).   Other vacation periods are included in the 20 working days as well as term-time (i.e. coursework handed in at the end of term should be returned at the start of the following term, not four weeks20 working days into it). Working days are Monday to Friday.

EC/216/17

EC/217/17

EC/218/17

TASK AND FINISH GROUP ON EQUAL ACCESS TO LEARNING SUPPORT (EC/17/41)

Received A paper from Professor Jackie Turton (Deputy Dean (Education) (Social Sciences)) setting out the findings and recommendations from the Task and Finish Group on Equal Access to Learning Support. The Group had considered academic use of educational technology focusing on FASER, Listen Again, Moodle and Talis Aspire.

EC/219/17

Noted In relation to FASER, the Committee decided that there should be a review of the options for the delivery of FASER functionality, including identifying additional functionality to support assessment activity. This would be incorporated into the Education Action Plan for 2017-18.

The Committee supported the recommendations on Listen Again, and wanted to ensure that there was a clear process and timescale for the publication of information on the availability of recordings, in time for information to be provided in module outlines. The Deputy Deans (Education) should work together to ensure a consistent approach to the approval of alternative adjustments where members of academic staff opted out of Listen Again.

The Students’ Union highlighted an issue that it had raised about the requirement for students to submit hard copies of coursework. The Committee agreed that where departments required hard copy submission of coursework, the cost should be met by the department. In relation to research students, Senate had already agreed the removal of the requirement for pre-examination hard copy thesis submission.

EC/220/17

EC/221/17

EC/222/17

6

Education Committee agreed that the Task and Finish Group should continue its work into 2017-18. The Group should bring an update on its work on operationalising its recommendations to the Committee’s next meeting.

EC/223/17

Resolved That the following be recommended to Senate:

i) That academics who opt out of Listen Again must a) offer alternative reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of all students, and particularly those covered by the Equality Act and b) the details of the alternative arrangements that will be made in such cases should be approved by the Deputy Dean (Education) in time for the alternative arrangements to be included in module outlines.

ii) That the Online Resource Bank (ORB) should be closed based on the following timetable: no new content added from 1 May 2017; support for ORB to be provided to 31 July 2018; and ORB to be backed up and taken off line on 31 July 2018.

iii) That academic staff should engage with Talis Aspire and work with the Library to enhance and keep content up to date.

iv) That mechanisms be put in place for sharing good practice in educational technology.

v) That systematic mechanisms be put in place to ensure student participation in the discussion and development of new learning technologies.

vi) That all module outlines should advertise whether Listen Again recordings are available.

vii) That departments should meet the cost of hard copy submission of coursework, where this is a requirement, with effect from 2017-18.

EC/224/17

EC/225/17

EC/226/17

EC/227/17

EC/228/17

EC/229/17

EC/230/17

UPDATE ON WORK BASED LEARNING

Received A verbal update from Dave Stanbury (Director of Employability) on new arrangements to support students to take up work based learning and departments to increase provision.

EC/231/17

Noted The University Steering Group had approved funding to support students with travel expenses and to set up a 3-year Innovation Fund.

EC/232/17

REVIEW OF THESIS WITH PAPERS (EC/17/42)

Received A paper from Professor Martyna Sliwa (PGRE Dean), Gedminte Mikulenaite (PGRE Project Officer) and Laura Ruddick (Senior PGRE Manager) setting out the findings and proposals from a review of the submission of theses as a series of papers. The Group had reviewed practice internally and externally, and had consulted on its proposals.

EC/233/17

7

Noted Education Committee supported the work being undertaken by the Group to establish a University-wide framework for the submission of a theses as a series of papers. It also supported the recommendation that the examiners should determine whether the work submitted was of publishable quality.

It noted the difficult task that the Group had had agreeing a common approach on co-authorship but asked that further consideration be given to this. The Group should also consider guidance on the word count for the introductory section of the thesis. Education Committee asked the Group to report to its meeting in December 2017.

EC/234/17

EC/235/17

REVIEW OF PART-TIME AND DISTANCE LEARNING RESEARCH DEGREES (EC/17/43)

Received A paper from Professor Martyna Sliwa (PGRE Dean), Gedminte Mikulenaite (PGRE Project Officer) and Dr Stacey Balsdon (PGRE Manager) setting out the findings and proposals from a review of part-time and distance learning postgraduate research student provision. The report had been updated to address points raised by Education Committee in March.

EC/236/17

Noted It was important that the students covered in the report were able to interact as part of the research community in the department.

The Librarian reported on work that was underway to raise the profile of Library resources and the support that subject librarians could provide to research students.

Education Committee noted the proposed actions.

EC/237/17

EC/238/17

EC/239/17

REPORT ON POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH STUDENT SUPERVISOR TRAINING (EC/17/44)

Received A paper from Laura Ruddick (Senior PGRE Manager) setting out the training framework for research student supervisors, which covered training requirements for new and experienced supervisors. The training would be delivered via Moodle and comprised three different pathways.

EC/240/17

Noted The Students’ Union Postgraduate Officer supported the proposed framework and noted that issues with supervision could be a cause of concern for some students. The proposed approach would support the delivery of excellence in education.

EC/241/17

Resolved That the requirements for research student supervisor training, as set out EC/17/44, be recommended to Senate for introduction with effect from 2017-18.

EC/242/17

POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR THE ETHICAL USE OF DATA FOR THE LEARNER ANALYTICS PROJECT (EC/17/45)

Received A paper from Richard Stock (Academic Registrar) and Linda Hanna (Senior Project Manager) on the consultation on the proposed principles that would underpin the policy framework for the ethical

EC/243/17

8

use of data in the Learner Analytics project. The principles would shape the policy, on which there would be a further round of consultation.

Noted The principles would inform how the pilots and subsequent phases of the project were implemented, and ensure that the project focused on helping students and helping staff to help students.

EC/244/17

REVIEW OF THE 28-DAY WITHDRAWAL RULE (EC/17/46)

Received A paper from Emma Hardy (Director of Academic Services) setting out the findings and recommendations from a review of the 28-day rule. The paper covered the processes for withdrawal of students who did not re-register, and for their subsequent reinstatement. There were links with the work on retention and the current work to support students returning from intermission.

EC/245/17

Noted The aim was to have clear processes, which supported students and their continuation. A number of actions were proposed, which would be implemented throughout 2017-18. The Committee approved the recommendations in relation to the operational changes and proposed changes to the reinstatement process, and agreed to recommend to Senate changes to the Regulations relating to Registration.

The implementation of the recommendations would be phased over October 2017 and October 2018, and there would continue to be consultation with the Students’ Union.

EC/246/17

EC/247/17

Resolved That changes to the Regulations relating to Registration be recommended to Senate for approval, as set out in EC/17/46, with effect from 2017-18.

EC/248/17

UPDATE ON THE REVIEW OF DEPARTMENTAL DISABLITY LIAISON OFFICER ROLE (EC/17/47)

Received A paper from Michele James (Accessibility Services Manager) providing an update on the review of the DDLO role and the creation of an Inclusivity Lead within departments. The pilot had been extended both in terms of number of participating departments and duration.

EC/249/17

Noted Education Committee supported the extension of the pilot. This should provide an opportunity to measure engagement with the Lead during the Autumn term including any impact on the engagement of disabled students. It was also concerned about the scope of the role and how this should be accounted for in workload allocation.

Education Committee requested an update at its meeting in December 2017 and information on the proposed timescale for the review.

EC/250/17

EC/251/17

COMBINED REPORT FROM THE FACULTY EDUCATION COMMITTEES AND 9

THE PARTNERSHIP EDUCATION COMMITTEE (EC/17/48)

Noted EC/252/17

Resolved To recommend to Senate that Colchester Institute be re-approved as a partner institution of the University of Essex for a period of five years from September 2017.

EC/253/17

ACADEMIC QUALITY AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE (EC/17/49)

Noted EC/254/17

STUDENT EXPERIENCE COMMITTEE (EC/17/50)

Noted EC/255/17

PROPOSED CHANGES TO RULES OF ASSESSMENT (EC/17/51)

Received A paper from Wendy Clifton-Sprigg (Deputy Director of Academic Services) setting out a number of proposed changes to the Rules of Assessment. A revised version of the paper had been circulated to members in advance of the meeting.

EC/256/17

Noted The Committee discussed the following proposals:

Appendix A – Mathematics variationThat a part-time course should be added to the list of courses covered by the proposal.

Appendix C – Tavistock variationThat minor editorial amendments would be incorporated into the proposal before it was reported to Senate for approval.

Appendix F – Theatre Studies variationThe Deputy Dean (Education) (Humanities) provided a verbal update on the changes to the proposal that had been circulated in advance to members. These addressed a number of issues about how the variation would be implemented. Extenuating circumstances related to non-attendance would be treated like late submission and be dealt with before the Board of Examiners. It was clarified that the normal process in the case of absence would be for a student to submit a notification of absence.

It was agreed that the variation should be recommended to Senate for approval but should be reviewed after the first year of operation.

Appendix H – rules relating to year abroadThe Committee discussed the recommendation for how credits from the year abroad should be treated to determine whether the year had been passed. This was not currently sufficiently clear in the rules. The proposal was to take the best 75 per cent of the credits to create an average year mark. This proposal recognised that these credits

EC/257/17

EC/258/17

EC/259/17

EC/260/17

EC/261/17

10

were additional to the 360 required for a 3-year degree and the additional difficulty of studying abroad.

It was agreed that the change should be recommended to Senate for approval but that it should be considered as part of the overall review being undertaken by the Rules of Assessment Task and Finish Group.

Appendix I – EBS Integrated PhDsThat minor editorial amendments would be incorporated into the proposal before it was reported to Senate for approval.

EC/262/17

EC/263/17

Resolved That the changes to the Rules of Assessment, as set out in EC/17/51 be recommend to Senate for approval, subject to the amendments set out above.

EC/264/17

REPORT ON THE ACADEMIC OFFENCES PROCEDURE (EC/17/52)

Received A paper from Dr Peter Luther (Deputy Dean (Education) (Humanities) and Jonathan Wright (Student Progress Manager) setting out the findings and recommendations following a review of the first year of operating the revised Academic Offences Procedures.

EC/265/17

Noted Minor amendments were proposed to penalties 2 and 3, along with other minor amendments. The Group had also considered what steps the University could take to actively reduce the opportunity for students to access Essay Mill services.

The Group would continue to monitor sector developments in this area.

EC/266/17

EC/267/17

Resolved That the following be recommended to Senate:

i) That the changes to the Academic Offences Procedures (including the Guidelines for Penalties for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Students) be approved, as set out in EC/17/52, with effect from 2017-18.

ii) That the changes to the University Regulations Relating to Academic Affairs (Cheating) be approved, as set out in EC/17/52, with effect from 2017-18.

iii) That access to websites identified as an essay mill be blocked from the University network with immediate effect.

iv) That student handbooks be updated to strongly warn students against the use of essay mill websites, informing students of the severity of the offence and also advising them to be prepared to provide their assignment notes and drafts upon request.

EC/268/17

EC/269/17

EC/270/17

EC/271/17

11

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PROGRESS PROCEDURES (EC/17/53)

Received A paper from Dr David Penman (Deputy Dean (Education) (Science and Health)) and Kirstie Sceats (Student Progress Manager) setting out recommendations for amendments to the Progress Procedures.

EC/272/17

Noted The improvements that had been made during 2016-17 to the operation of the procedure. The report proposed some amendments to the procedure for 2017-18, which were designed to maximise its effectiveness.

It discussed the proposed arrangements for the departments participating in the Learner Analytics pilots in 2017-18. There was a preference expressed for the same process to operate across the three departments. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) would approve these arrangements, consulting the Chair of the Attendance Monitoring Steering Group. It was agreed that Senate should be asked to approve the principle that alternative arrangements operate for the Learner Analytics pilots but that this should not be included in the procedures. The arrangements in the pilot departments would need to be clearly and comprehensively communicated to students.

EC/273/17

EC/274/17

Resolved That the following be recommended to Senate for approval:

i) That monitoring for undergraduate students be undertaken at the following checkpoints: weeks 4, 6 and 9 in the Autumn term; week 18 in the Spring term.

ii) That the opportunity to exercise discretion be extended to include checkpoint 3 (week 9) but no earlier, and all subsequent checkpoints. Discretion cannot be applied to Tier 4 students.

iii) That students involved in the Learner Analytics pilot should be subject to different monitoring and follow-up arrangements at stages 1, 2 and 3 of the Progress Procedures for the duration of the pilot.

iv) The revisions to Regulation 6.19, as set out in EC/17/53, with effect from 2017-18.

v) The revisions to the Progress and Appeals Procedures for Taught Programmes of Study, as set out in Appendix B, with effect from 2017-18

vi) The revisions to the Guidelines as set out in EC/17/53, with effect from 2017-18.

EC/275/17

EC/276/17

EC/277/17

EC/278/17

EC/279/17EC/280/17

EC/281/17

REVISIONS TO APPEALS, COMPLAINTS, CONDUCT AND FITNESS TO PRACTICE PROCEDURES (EC/17/54)

Resolved That the following revisions to procedure, as set out in EC/17/54, be recommended to Senate for approval, with effect from 2017-18:

i) Procedure for Appeals against the Decision of Board of Examiners for all Taught Programmes

ii) Student Concerns and Complaints Procedure

EC/282/17

EC/283/17

12

iii) Code of Student Conduct and Code of Student Conduct in Residential Accommodation

iv) Fitness to Practise Procedures

EC/284/17

EC/285/17

REVISION TO PGR APPEALS PROCEDURE (EC/17/55)

Resolved That the revisions to the PGR appeals procedure, set out in EC/17/55, be recommended to Senate for approval with effect from 2017-18.

EC/286/17

PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATES TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT (EC/17/56)

Resolved That the following changes to the arrangements for Professional Doctorates, as set out in EC/17/56, be recommended to Senate for approval, with effect from 2017-18:

i) The revised version of the Professional Doctorate Code of Practice

ii) The Rules of Assessment documents as frameworks for Professional Doctorates at the University of Essex and its partner institutions

iii) The Professional Doctorate Code of Practice for the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust

iv) The Professional Doctorate Milestone Document for the Centre for Psychoanalytic Studies

EC/287/17

EC/288/17

EC/289/17

EC/290/17

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH DEGREE REGULATION AND POLICY AMENDMENTS (EC/17/57)

Resolved That the following changes to regulations, codes of practice and policies in relation to research degrees, as set out in EC/1757, be recommended to Senate for approval with effect from 2017-18:

i) Principal Regulations for Research Degrees ii) Code of Practice: Postgraduate Research Degrees iii) Viva Guidelines iv) Intermission Guidelines v) Policy on Thesis Submission, Deposit and Retention

EC/291/17EC/292/17EC/293/17EC/294/17EC/295/17

LIBRARY REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS (EC/17/58)

Resolved That the revisions to the Library Regulations, set out in EC/17/58, be recommended to Senate for approval with effect from 2017-18.

EC/296/17

SUPERVISORY PANEL REPORT REQUIREMENTS (EC/17/59)

Approved The Supervisory Panel Report Requirements as set out in EC/17/59. EC/297/17STUDY SPACES GROUP (EC/17/60)

Received A paper from Josh Gulrajani, Vice-President (Education), proposing that a Task and Finish Group on Study Spaces be established. The Group would evaluate the effectiveness of the current study spaces

EC/298/17

13

offered to students and bring forward any recommendations for improvements or changes.

Noted The Group would focus primarily on study spaces at Colchester but would be mindful of specific issues in relation to other campuses. Its remit would cover planned and new spaces, such as the new STEM building. The Group would make an interim report in September and a final report in December.

Education Committee encouraged the Group to consider the involvement of the Proctor. The terms of reference would be revised to make reference to the other campuses, and to clarify that Education Committee does not consider resource issues.

EC/299/17

EC/300/17

Approved That a Task and Finish Group on Study Spaces be established. EC/301/17

REPORT FROM LIBRARY ADVISORY GROUP (EC/17/91)

Noted EC/302/17

REVISIONS TO ADMISSIONS POLICIES (EC/17/62)

Received A paper from Lucy Murray (Director of Admissions and Access) proposing changes to the Admissions Policies. A revised version of the paper had been circulated to members in advance of the meeting.

EC/303/17

Resolved To approve the following changes to Admissions Policies for the 2018-19 admissions cycle, as set out in EC/17/62:

i) Undergraduate ii) Postgraduate

EC/304/17EC/305/17

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Noted The Chair thanked the outgoing student members for their contribution to the work of the Committee.

EC/306/17

Wendy Clifton-SpriggDeputy Director, Academic Services (Student Administration and Policy)Secretary, Education CommitteeAcademic Section

July 2017

14

Appendix A

University of EssexMarking Policy for Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate Work

DefinitionsMarking PoliciesRequests from students to have their work re-markedReconciliation of marksThe use of internal and external staff for markingMarking policy for all taught students (Marking Policy Table)Appendix A: Form to request a re-mark

Purpose of PolicyThe policy applies to all taught course students including the taught elements of postgraduate research awards).The policy applies to assessment contributing to a mark at all levels, including the bridging year, level three, level four, as well as the mark appearing on the Examination Board grids from which a student's final degree classification is derived.A list of definitions and marking policies is given below, followed by a table showing the requirements applied to different forms of assessment. Where a particular mode of assessment requires moderation, second-marking or double-marking the requirements outlined in the policy are a minimum. Departments can moderate, second-mark or double-mark more work if they wish, or if they are required to do so by a professional body.

1. Definitions1.1 Summative assessmentSummative assessments are those which contribute to a module mark, award mark, degree classification or any professional requirements of a course.

1.2 Formative assessmentFormative assessments are those for which students may receive a mark, but which does not contribute to any module mark, award mark, degree classification or any professional requirements of a course.

1.3 Examination1.3.1 Only an examination which is invigilated should be classed as an examination and

displayed as such on the transcript. This definition would also cover open-book examinations and Stage 1 MCQ tests in Biological Sciences.

1.3.2 Take-home examinations should be classed as coursework and departments would need to make this clear in the module information.

1.3.3 Invigilated in-class tests and progress tests are classed as coursework.

1.4 Single markingStudent work is marked by one individual. Only for assessments up to and including 40% of an individual module. Students have the right to request that the work is re-marked if they disagree with the original mark (see section 3 below Requests from students to have their work re-marked).

15

1.5 Single marking using a marking schedule, marking scheme or optical mark recognition (OMR)This is usually found in science departments. Normally there should be some kind of clerical check to ensure that the marks have been added up correctly, and assigned to the correct candidates where OMR is used. Where marking schedules are used for exams, they must be sent with draft exam papers to the External Examiner for comments and approval.

1.6 ModerationModeration is a process separate from that of marking and provides assurance that assessment criteria have been applied appropriately, reflecting the shared understanding of the markers, and is an approach which enables comparability across academic subjects. (qaa.ac.uk). A moderator reviews a sample of the marked student work and liaises with the first marker if they believe that the marks were not at the correct level with a view to the first marker reviewing and adjusting the marking. A moderator would not change the individual students’ marks for the work, but the first marker and moderator would agree whether marks should be reviewed across the particular piece of assessment or module, which may lead to marks being adjusted. In the case of a major discrepancy, it might be necessary for all the work to be re-marked (by second mark ed ing or double-marking). This policy explains the role of both internal moderation and external moderation carried out by the External Examiner(s).

1.7 1.6 Single marking with moderationModeration must take place on individual assessments worth more than 40% of an individual module. Moderation must also take place where the original marker is a Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) or recently appointed member of staff, or where a team of markers is involved in marking coursework. All fails must be second - marked and a random sample (10%) must also be moderated. A moderator would not change the individual marks for the work, but would liaise with the first marker if s/he believed that the marks were not at the correct level, with a view to the first marker reviewing and adjusting the marking. In the case of a major discrepancy it might be necessary for all the work to be second marked.

1.8 1.7 Second markingThis is where a second marker marks the work but has access to the first marker’s marks and/or comments. Marks must be reconciled – see section 4 below.

1.9 1.8 Double markingTwo markers mark the work independently without access to each other’s marks or comments about the work. Marks must be reconciled – see section 4 below.

1.10 Reconciliation of marks1.10.1 Where two members of staff are involved in marking a piece of work, the markers

should make every effort to agree a mark, rather than merely averaging the two marks. Departments must keep a full record of both individual and agreed marks for all work which is second or double marked.

1.10.2 Where the two internal markers are unable to reach agreement, the department should make every effort to resolve the matter internally, for example by involving a third person to arbitrate or, if necessary, to act as a third marker. Work should only be sent to an External Examiner, who will be asked to arbitrate, in exceptional circumstances. The External Examiner must be given access to written comments from internal markers on the piece(s) of work involved.

1.11 1.9 Monitored assessment16

This is all assessment carried out under invigilation or supervision – for example: examinations, multiple-choice tests, time-controlled essays, open-book essays, presentations, performances, group discussions.

1.12 1.10 Unmonitored assessmentThis is assessment that that is written in a student’s own time – for example: essays, journal articles, lab reports.

1.13 1.11 Performance-based coursework with non-permanent outputThis is coursework such as presentations, acting and dance, where the student does not provide an output capable of being shown to the external examiner. (A presentation where output such as a PowerPoint presentation is submitted would still count as performance- based coursework with non-permanent output, unless the key learning outcome being assessed is academic content rather than presentation skill.)

2. Marking Policies

2.1 Assessment Strategy (requirement of all departments)Departments should develop an assessment strategy for each course, or set of courses, for approval in the annual monitoring process. The assessment strategy should address the following issues:2.1.1 Diversity of assessment within a course;2.1.2 Coverage of module learning outcomes by assessment methods;2.1.3 The balance between monitored and unmonitored assessment;2.1.4 Approaches to prevent and detect plagiarism in assessment;2.1.5 Professional Body Requirements, if appropriate;

and in cases of Departments proposing to have modules assessed by 100% coursework:

2.1.6 Appropriate use of the academic year;2.1.7 Approaches to assessment for the discipline at other comparable institutions.

2.2 Assessment of performance-based coursework (including oral presentations)Performance-based assessment with a permanent output, capable of being shown to the External Examiner should be subject to the normal policy for essays/assignments, but only where the permanent output relates directly to the assessment criteria. For example, a presentation where output such as a PowerPoint document is submitted would still count as performance-based coursework with non-permanent output, unless a learning outcome being assessed is academic content rather than presentation skill.

Performance-based assessment with a non-permanent output worth up to and including 40% of a module may be single marked. Where this type of assessment contributes to more than 40% of a module, work must be either double-marked, team marked, video/audio recorded or attended by the external examiner based on 100% coverage of the whole cohort.

2.3 Assessment of group work2.3.1 Group work with a permanent output should be subject to the normal moderation

process for essays/assignments.2.3.2 Group work with a non-permanent output should be subject to the policy for the

assessment of performance-based coursework.2.3.3 The maximum amount that a joint mark (where a single group mark is derived from

people working together in a group) can contribute to a single module is 25%.

2.4 Marks for participation in tutorial, class or seminar discussions17

Marks for participation may contribute no more than 5 percent of the overall mark of a module and the marks should relate to a module learning outcome.

2.5 Moderation of work-based learning/placementThe University publishes guidelines on work-based learning which state that ‘the assessment of work-based learning/placement should be subject to the normal departmental procedures in respect of moderation and external examining’.

2.6 Moderation of study abroad workThe University should take the mark awarded by the host institution and use the established conversion tables to convert the mark to the standard University scale. The External Examiner should have oversight of the marks awarded by a host institution and the conversion used.The External Examiner should be invited to provide comment, through his/her report, if he/she observes any anomalies between the converted marks and the rest of the students’ marks profiles.

2.7. Marking or moderation of the work of students who are partners or close relativesStaff should not mark or moderate (including second or double-marking) the work of partners or close relatives.

2.8 Moderating/second marking/double-marking where the first marker is a partner or close relativeStaff should not act as moderator or second marker where their partner or close relative is the first marker.

2.9 Anonymous Marking 2.9.1 Formative and Summative Assessment

Anonymous marking only applies to summative assessment. It does not apply to formative assessment. (see 1.1 and 1.2)

2.9.2 Anonymous Marking of Examinations The University operates an institution-wide policy of anonymous marking of all formal examinations. (see 1.3 for definitions of formal examinations).

2.9.3 Anonymous Marking of Coursework a. All summative coursework should be marked anonymously where it is

practical to do so.b. Where it is not practical for coursework to be marked anonymously,

departments will make students aware, in advance of the assessment task, that this is the case.

c. A guidance note on the operation of the policy on anonymous marking of coursework will be produced, and will be reviewed annually.

3. Requests from students to have their work re-marked3.1 The following apply to all requests for a re-mark:

3.1.1 Students may only request a re-mark of work under the circumstances set out in 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 below.

3.1.2 If a request for a re-mark is approved, work will be either second or double-marked and marks must be reconciled (see Section 4).

18

Where there are exceptional circumstances that prevent the second or double-markers from reconciling the marks, the work will be marked by two new markers who will reconcile their marks (see Section 4 below).

Departments should explain the process for re-marking to students.

3.1.3 Departments must make clear to students their policy on how to request a re-mark and are advised to set an appropriate deadline for requests. Please note the particular deadlines and procedure for requesting a re-mark set out in 3.3.2 below cannot be changed.

3.1.4 Departments must warn students that marks can increase, decrease or remain the same after a request for a re-mark.

3.1.5 Departments must determine the appropriate level of feedback to give students after a re-mark in line with in line with University expectations on feedback.

3.1.6 The right to request a re-mark can only be requested on one occasion for any particular piece of work (unless a procedural/administrative error is suspected).

3.2 Coursework which is single-marked (see 1.4)Where coursework has a permanent output and is single marked, students have the right to request formal re-marking of a piece of work if they disagree with the original or if they suspect there has been a procedural/administrative error. Requests for a re-mark should be made following the department’s policy.

3.3 Coursework which is moderated (see 1.6 and 1.7)Where coursework has a permanent output, has been single marked with a sample being moderated, students have the right to request formal re-marking of the piece of work under one or both of the following criteria:

3.3.1 Procedural/administrative error is suspected.Students have the right to request formal re-marking of a piece of work if they suspect there has been a procedural/administrative error. Requests for a re-mark should be made following the department’s policy.

3.3.2 If the work was not initially included in the sample for moderation.The student may only request a re-mark under this criteria if:

The student has met with the initial marker (or suitable nominee appointed by the relevant Director of Education) to obtain further feedback on the reason for the initial mark before making a formal request for a re-mark; and

The form requesting a re-mark has been completed and submitted with the signature of the first marker (or nominee, see above) confirming that the meeting has taken place, no later than two weeks of term time from the date of the initial feedback to students.

3.4 Other circumstancesThere may be exceptional circumstances where approval is given for a piece of work to be re-marked which falls outside those defined in 3.2 and 3.3. Where this is the case, the conditions set out in 3.1.1 – 3.1.6 apply. Students should contact their department for advice, and should also note that approval will only be given in exceptional cases.

19

3.5 ExaminationsStudents may only request a re-mark of examination scripts if procedural/administrative error is suspected.

4. Reconciliation of Marks4.1 Where two members of staff are involved in marking a piece of work, the markers should make every effort to agree a mark, rather than merely averaging the two marks. Departments must keep a full record of both individual and agreed marks for all work which is second or double marked.

4.2 Where the two internal markers are unable to reach agreement, the department should make every effort to resolve the matter internally, for example by involving a third person to arbitrate or, if necessary, to act as a third marker. Work should only be sent to an External Examiner, who will be asked to arbitrate, in exceptional circumstances. The External Examiner must be given access to written comments from internal markers on the piece(s) of work involved.

4. The use of internal and external staff for marking4.1 Examination marking by Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) It is generally desirable that examinations should be marked by permanent teaching staff. Where it is necessary for graduate students to undertake this role, the following policy applies:

4.1.1 A graduate student should be employed to mark examinations only when the individual has taught the whole or a significant part of the module.Permission to employ a graduate student for marking must be sought in advance from the relevant Dean, on the basis of a case made by the Head of Department or partner institution, indicating the monitoring arrangements proposed. There is an application form which must be completed and submitted to the relevant Dean.

4.2 Coursework marking by GTAsIt is generally desirable that coursework should be marked by permanent teaching staff. Where it is necessary for graduate students to undertake this role, the following policy applies:

4.2.1 A graduate student should be employed to mark coursework only when the individual has taught/demonstrated a relevant part of the module in the current or previous academic year(s) or the relevant Dean has accepted a case made by the Head of Department on the competence of the graduate student.

4.3 The Role of the External ExaminerUnless the External Examiner has been specifically sent work to arbitrate on a dispute between internal markers, the External Examiner ’s role will be as a moderator. External Examiners should not act as second markers. In moderating student work the Module External Examiner is providing an independent overview of the consistency of approaches to assessment. As such, the Module External Examiner’s primary concern is with the overall marking standard in the module rather than with marks obtained by individual students. The External Examiner should not alter the marks of any individual student.

5.4 Marking the Work of Students who are Partners or Close RelativesStaff should not mark the work of partners or close relatives unless approval is given by the Head of Department. In the case of a query, the Head should determine whether there is a conflict of interest.

20

5.5 Moderating/Second Marking/ Double Marking the Work by Staff who are Partners or Close RelativesStaff should not act as moderator or second marker where their partner or close relative is the first marker unless approval is given by the Head of Department. In the case of a query, the Head should determine whether there is a conflict of interest.

5.7 5.6 5. Exemptions to the University’s Marking PolicyIf a department believes it is not possible to comply with an aspect of the University’s marking policy, the department must apply for an exemption to this aspect and propose an acceptable alternative arrangement for approval by the Executive Dean of Faculty and PVC (Education).

21

Guidance note on the operation of the policy on anonymous marking of coursework

1. Duration of anonymity1.1. When work is marked anonymously, anonymity should be maintained until the

marks for the piece of work have been released to students. In cases where work is subject to second marking, double marking or moderation, anonymity should be maintained until all stages of the marking and moderation process have been completed.

1.2. When work has been marked anonymously and a student subsequently requests that the work should be re-marked (see Marking Policy section 3, Requests from students to have their work re-marked), the designated second marker(s) should receive an anonymised copy of the student’s work, and should not be told the student’s identity until the re-marking process has been completed.

2. Circumstances when it is not practical for work to be marked anonymously2.1. The University recognises that it is not practical for all coursework to be marked

anonymously. Where this is the case, departments should make students aware, in advance of the assessment task, that their work will not be marked anonymously.

2.2. Coursework which falls into the following groups will not be marked anonymously and there is no requirement for the Department to seek permission not to use anonymous marking. This applies to individual pieces of coursework, and not to assessment for a module as a whole (unless all pieces fall into these categories).

a. Marks which are based on observation of studentsThis includes performance-based coursework, student presentations, practical demonstrations or activities, and marks for participation or contribution to class discussion.

b. Work which has been closely supervised or negotiated where a marker has had interaction with the student such that the student’s work cannot be anonymous to that markerThis includes laboratory work, assessment of work-based learning activities, specific dissertation or capstone projects where the student has received close supervision to an extent that prevents anonymity being maintained, and agreed forms of assessment and feedback in case of individual student learning needs. Where work which falls into this category is subject to moderation, second marking or double marking (see Marking Policy for Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate Work, sections 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8 for definitions), the second assessor should receive an anonymised copy of the student’s work. For work which falls into this category and is subject to moderation or second marking, the second assessor may see the first marker’s comments on the work, with the exception of any comments which might reveal the student’s identity.

3. Other circumstances when identity may be revealed3.1. In the following circumstances, anonymity may be lifted:

a. Where it is not possible to maintain anonymity and carry out our duty of care or to follow a policy or procedure effectively, including: Investigation into a suspected academic offence, and marking of work

submitted in response to a penalty relating to an academic offence; Where the nature of work submitted for an assignment raises concerns

that a student, or someone else, may be at risk of serious harm.b. Where marks from another institution contribute towards an award

22

Marks awarded by other institutions, for example those which are recognised through accreditation of prior or experiential learning, or through study abroad, will follow the other institution’s policy on anonymous marking.

4. Requests for coursework not to be marked anonymously4.1. Where a Department wishes to argue that it is not practical for anonymous marking

to be used in situations other than those listed in section 2, the Director of Education may make a case in writing to the Deputy Dean (Education) of the Faculty.

4.2. The written case should be sent in the first instance to the Quality and Academic Development Manager for the relevant Department. The Department should explain why it would not be practical for anonymous marking to be used in the particular circumstances, and should state what alternative measures will be taken to ensure consistency of marking (for example, second marking or moderation, where these are not already required by the Marking Policy). The decision of the Deputy Dean (Education) will be final.

4.3. Requests should be made annually, and will be considered for individual pieces of coursework. Where reassessment does not mirror the format of original assessment tasks, a separate anonymity waiver request will be needed for the reassessment.

23

Marking Policy for all Taught Students

Coursework Marking Protocol*An individual item of coursework worth up to and including 40% of an individual module:Essays/assignmentsCoursework tests using written answer papers, including in-class tests and progress testsPerformance-based coursework with a permanent output, capable of being shown to the External ExaminerPerformance-based coursework with a non- permanent outputGroup work with a permanent outputGroup work with a non-permanent output

Single marked.

Moderation required for Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs), new staff**, and assessed coursework titles and tests marked by multiple staff.

An individual item of coursework contributing more than 40% of an individual module:Essays/assignmentsCoursework tests using written answer papers, including in-class tests and progress testsPerformance-based coursework with a permanent output, capable of being shown to the External ExaminerGroup work with a permanent output

All fails must be second-marked and a random sample (10%) must also be moderated. (For PGT courses, “fail” encompasses marks in the condonable 40-50% range).

Coursework testing using OMR sheets, marking schemes or online testing toolsCoursework marked to a marking schedule

An independent check must be made to ensure that the programme is working accurately and that marks have been assigned to the correct candidates.

Individual items of coursework comprising at least 30 credits (including PGT Dissertation and final year undergraduate project reports)

All must be second marked or double marked.

Performance-based coursework with a non- permanent output that contributes to more than 40% of a single moduleGroup work with a non-permanent output that contributes to more than 40% of a single module

All must be double-marked or team marked, or video/audio recorded or attended by the external examiner.

Examination Marking ProtocolAll exams at level 3 and 4;and exams at level 5 which count for 50% or less of the module mark***.

The scripts only need to be single-marked, but all fails must be second-marked and a random sample (10%) must also be moderated. Where a formal marking schedule is in place it is not necessary to second-mark or sample - but an independent check must be made on all marks calculations. Marking schedules must be reviewed as part of the department’s procedures for reviewing draft exam papers.

All exams at level 5 which count for greater than 50% of the module mark; and all exams at level 6 and 7***.

All scripts must be second marked, double marked or marked to a marking schedule

* These are minimum requirements and departments can moderate, second mark or double mark more work if they wish, or if they are required to do so by a professional and/or regulatory body. If a department believes it is not possible to comply with an aspect of the University’s marking policy, then the department must apply for an exemption to this aspect and propose an acceptable alternative arrangement for approval by the Faculty Executive Dean and PVC Education** It is for departments to determine how long moderation needs to continue for a new member of staff.*** An independent check on all marks calculations must be made where a marking schedule is used. Marking schedules must be sent with draft exams to the External Examiner for comments and approval.

Form for requesting a re-mark of work which has not previously been included in a sample for moderation

Name of student

Registration number

Title and code of module affected and a brief description of the piece of work, with date on which feedback was given to students, for which you are seeking re-marking.

Signature of first marker (or substitute nominated by the Director of Education of the relevant Department, School, Centre or Partner Institution) to confirm that a meeting to discuss the initial feedback has taken place.

Signed: Date

Print name:

Very brief description of the grounds for wanting a re-mark:

Declaration by student: I declare that: this individual item of assessment was originally marked by one person (single

marked) and that my work was not initially included in the sample for moderation; I have had a meeting with the initial marker (or substitute) to discuss the feedback

on my work, and that I am still dissatisfied with the mark; I request remarking of the work. I understand that marks can go up as well as

down as a result of re-marking. I further understand that the decision of the new marker is final relating to this piece of work (unless procedural irregularity is suspected).

Signed:

Date:

Appendix B

Progress and Appeals Procedures for Taught Programmes of Study (Sections 1 – 6)

To Whom do these Procedures apply?These procedures apply to all students on taught programmes of study, including the following: students on undergraduate courses; students on University of Essex foundation-year courses taught on campus or away; students on postgraduate taught courses; students studying abroad as part of their degrees.

Immigration StatusThese procedures focus exclusively on Academic progress and appeals; staff involved in consideration of progress matters or appeals should not consider immigration status. However, all outcomes in relation to a student’s continued registration at the University are subject to his or her having met the terms of their immigration status where applicable. The immigration status is a secondary decision but may mean that a student cannot legally accept the decision that has been confirmed as part of the Progress and Appeals Procedures.

Where an immigration status is questioned by the evidence being considered by the progress procedures process then the secretary to a panel or, where being considered at a preliminary stage, the department should seek advice from the Compliance Manager or Head of International Services and who will confirm either that (a) there is no issue to consider or (b) refer the matter to the Academic Registrar who shall review the case and advise the Registrar in accordance with 7.22-7.28 in the General Regulations, Academic Conduct.

1.MONITORING OF STUDENT PROGRESS AND ATTENDANCE 1

a. Student engagement with their programme of study is primarily measured by attendance and completion of coursework and other assessed work, which are monitored in and by departments. As appropriate and where available, departments will take into account performance in assessed work when considering the impact of unsatisfactory attendance on a student’s academic progress.

b. Unsatisfactory attendance is determined on the basis of unauthorised absence from timetabled teaching event(s).

c. Heads of Department are responsible for ensuring that an effective means of monitoring students' attendance and completion of assessments is established and maintained in each department in accordance with the requirements set out below.

d. Departmental procedures including any formally approved variation to this procedure should be communicated to all students taking modules in the Department. This should include what level of non-submission/non-completion of coursework and other assessed work would be addressed at the Preliminary Stage (see 1f1g) below) and what would be addressed by a meeting with a departmental Progress Officer as the first action (see Secondary Stage 1g1h) below.

1 There may be professional, regulatory or statutory requirements regarding attendance that have consequences for students beyond those outlined in this procedure.

Progress Procedures for Taught Studentse. For all taught students, departments should:

(i) record and monitor, the attendance of students at all timetabled teaching events.(ii) review regularly the data for all students on their degrees (including joint courses for which

they are responsible) including the data for outside options which the student is taking and any compulsory in-sessional English module, and any available information on assessment due to be completed.

(iii) monitor the submission of all coursework and other assessed work.(iv) Keep a record of correspondence communications with students when undertaking

progress procedures.Preliminary Stagef. g .Where attendance and/or completion of assessments is unsatisfactory:

(i) for all taught students, where there has been no attendance in the monitoring period the student will receive an invitation to a meeting normally with their Personal Tutor

(ii) for undergraduate students, where the level of attendance is unsatisfactory in the monitoring period, the student will receive a communication from their department in the first instance. If, following a further monitoring period, the level of attendance continues to be unsatisfactory, the student will receive an invitation to a meeting, either a group meeting or an individual meeting normally with their Personal Tutor. Discretion may be applied in accordance with the approved guidance. the Spring term, where an unsatisfactory level of attendance coupled with satisfactory academic progress may not necessarily result in a meeting, except where the student holds a Tier 4 visa.

(iii) for all taught students, as determined by the department (see 1d) above) in the case of some instances of non-submission of assessed work, the student will receive an invitation to a meeting normally with their Personal Tutor.

Secondary stageg. h In the following instances of unsatisfactory attendance and/or completion of assessed work

the student will receive an invitation to a meeting with either their Personal Tutor or equivalent or a departmental Progress Officer. Discretion may be applied in accordance with the approved guidance in case of I – iii below, except where a student holds a Tier 4 visa:

(i) failure to attend either a group meeting or an individual meeting with a Personal Tutor or equivalent

(ii) continued non-attendance following a further one-week monitoring period(iii) continued unsatisfactory level of attendance following a further monitoring period(iv) as determined by the department (see 1.d) above) some instances of non-submission

of assessed work will be referred directly to the Progress OfficerReferral to the Executive Dean or his/her deputyh. i Where a department’s efforts to encourage a student to engage with their studies have been

unsuccessful and/or where progress measured by the completion of the required assessments is such that the student is unlikely to complete the stage successfully, the Progress Officer should refer the student to the relevant Executive Dean or his/her deputy in the following circumstances:

(i) failure to attend the required meeting under (g)(ii) continued non-attendance following a further one-week monitoring period

(iii) (i) continued non-attendance or unsatisfactory level of attendance following a further monitoring period, where this suggests the student is unlikely to complete the year successfully

(iv) (ii )unsatisfactory submission of assessed work to an extent that suggests the student is unlikely to complete the year successfully

i. j.Where a case is referred to the Executive Dean or his/her deputy, he/she may:(i) refer the case to a Progress Committee(ii) decide to take no further action/refer the case back to the department(iii) arrange to meet the student

j. k. The Executive Dean or his/her deputy may invite the student to a meeting to discuss their progress. Following this meeting the Executive Dean or his/her deputy may:

(i) refer the case to a Progress Committee(ii) permit the student to proceed with or without certain conditions, breach of which

would automatically result in the student being referred to a Progress Committee (iii) decide to take no further action

Subsequent occurrences of unsatisfactory attendance/non-submission in the same stage of study, where a student has previously been considered under these procedures, may result in an accelerated route through the stages set out in 1f to 1h above where a department decides that the case should be considered at the next stage in the procedures. A department may take into consideration the previous year’s attendance record when advising a student and when deciding whether to call a student to a meeting with the departmental progress officer, however, this information shall not be used to accelerate the steps as set out in the Progress Procedures.

k. l. If a student does not attend a meeting with the Executive Dean or his/her deputy, and their attendance and/or submission of coursework has been unsatisfactory, then it will be assumed that they are no longer engaged in the course and they will normally be withdrawn.

l. m . Departments operating joint degrees should liaise with the other departments involved to ensure that there is full co-ordination on the monitoring of progress. In the case of multidisciplinary courses the Director of the degree course should liaise with contributing departments.

2.REFERRAL TO PROGRESS COMMITTEE

a. If an Executive Dean or his/her deputy refers the case of a student to Progress Committee then the Registry will write to inform the student and will copy the letter to the student's department.

b. The student should be given adequate time to seek advice and prepare his or her case before the meeting of the Progress Committee. The letter to the student will indicate the reason for the referral to the Progress Committee.

c. The student will be invited to attend the meeting and may be accompanied by a student of the University, a member of staff of the University or an employee of the Students' Union.

d. A meeting may proceed in the absence of the student (and their representative) provided that the Chair of the Progress Committee is satisfied that due notice has been given to the student.

e. A student who is unable to attend the meeting can ask a student of the University, a member of staff of the University or an employee of the Students’ Union to attend on his or her behalf.

No person can represent the student in his or her absence unless he or she has expressly been asked to do so by the student.

f. The student will be invited to submit in advance the following documents:(i) a written statement giving any facts or extenuating circumstances (see section 9 of this

document) which the student thinks may have affected his or her engagement(ii) documentary evidence to support any extenuating circumstances put forward. If no such

documentation is provided, the Progress Committee may place lesser weight on the extenuating circumstances.

3.COMPOSITION AND FORM OF PROGRESS COMMITTEES

a. Each Faculty will have A Progress Committee shall be convened and chaired by an Executive Dean or his/her deputy. The quorum for a Progress Committee is three.

b. A Progress Committee, for each student considered by that Committee, will normally consist of the relevant an Executive Dean or his/her deputy and one other member from outside the student's department, selected by the Executive Dean or his/her deputy from a panel approved annually together with(i) for undergraduates, normally the Course Director or nomineeor(ii) for graduates, the Director of Graduate Studies or his/her nominee.

c. The member of staff from the student’s department should have no previous experience of hearing the progress issue.

4.CONDUCT OF PROGRESS COMMITTEES

a. The Progress Committee will consider each case referred by an Executive Dean or his/her deputy.

b. The Committee should receive papers fully setting out the case. The Head of Department or nominee should be responsible for gathering the required information.

c. The Progress Committee may take into account performance in any remedial work and tests prescribed for overseas students following a test of proficiency in written and spoken English taken on arrival at the University; the Progress Committee may also take into account failure to attend the module or take the test.

d. The student should receive copies of all the papers that are presented to Progress Committee, unless the confidentiality of a document precludes showing it to the student, in which case the Executive Dean or his/her deputy may inform the Committee and the student of the existence and general import of the document without divulging the details. The papers will be available to the student when they are available to members of the Progress Committee, normally in advance of the meeting.

e. When the student is accompanied by a student of the University, a member of staff of the University or an employee of the Students’ Union, it must be noted that the person is present to act as the student's advocate and for no other reason.

f. Meetings of Progress Committees will be conducted in accordance with the Order of Proceedings.

g. The decision of the Progress Committee may be communicated orally to the student at the conclusion of the meeting. Formal notification of the outcome will be sent to the student in every case.

Progress Committee: Order of ProceedingsNOTE:This document, which is derived from the Progress Procedures has no formal standing. It is issued to members of Progress Committees and students appearing before them as a guide to the order of proceedings.The Proceedings are likely to follow the pattern outlined below, although there may be some variation at the discretion of the Chair.1. The Chair opens the meeting by introducing himself/herself and establishing the names and

functions of those in the room.2. Check that the student has received the details of the case and any supporting

documentation.3. Explain the order of proceedings to the student.4. Outline the case for referral to Progress Committee.5. Invite the student to put forward a case orally, if he/she wishes to do so.6. Invite the members of the committee to put questions to the student.7. Invite the student's representative to put forward any additional statement.8. Invite the student to respond and state what his/her preferred outcome would be.9. The student and his/her representative will then be asked to leave the room. The decision of

the Progress Committee will be communicated to the student orally either immediately after the meeting, or at another pre-arranged time. Students will be sent written confirmation of the decision of the Progress Committee.

AdjournmentThe Committee may adjourn:a. In order to enable the student or the student’s representative to be present;b. Where this is necessary to obtain further information.The Committee shall meet to consider an adjourned case as soon as it is feasible and not later than two months after the adjournment, although the case need not be determined at the resumed meeting. If necessary, the Executive Dean or his/her deputy may co-opt additional members to replace any member not able to attend the reconvened meeting, including a new Chair. If there are two new members, the reconvened meeting shall proceed as a new hearing.If there is one new member, the student may request that the meeting proceed as a new hearing.

5.POWERS OF PROGRESS COMMITTEE

a. After consideration of the case, the Progress Committee will make one of the following decisions:(i) that the student be permitted to proceed, with or without specific conditions(ii) that the student be permitted to proceed with a suspended withdrawal, with the

withdrawal taking effect if the student’s engagement continues to be unsatisfactory within a specified period

(iii) that the student be required to withdraw permanently.b. In certain circumstances the Progress Committee may deem it appropriate to:

(i) permit the student to repeat an appropriate period of study, including all or part of a period of study abroad

(ii) permit the student to transfer to another appropriate degree course(iii) require the student to intermit for a period of time before proceeding

c. Progress Committee may also attach such conditions as seem likely to assist the future progress of the student.

6.APPEALS AGAINST THE DECISION OF AN EXECUTIVE DEAN OR HIS/HER DEPUTY OR PROGRESS COMMITTEEA student who wishes to appeal against the decision of an Executive Dean or his/her deputy or a Progress Committee must do so in writing by submitting a Progress Appeal Form to the Academic Registrar, stating fully the grounds of the appeal, within five ten working days of the date on which the student was confirmed to the student in writing of the letter sent informing the student of the decision. Students are strongly encouraged to contact SU Advice for advice and guidance before submitting an appeal. If the student can show that circumstances beyond his or her control prevented this time limit being adhered to and that injustice would result from adhering to it, the Academic Registrar may extend the time limit in which an appeal may be lodged normally up to the period of twenty working days from the date on which the final decision was confirmed to the student in writing.a. The grounds on which a student may appeal are:

(i) that there were procedural irregularities in the arrangements for the meeting with the Executive Dean or his/her deputy or conduct of the Progress Committee (including alleged administrative error) of such a nature as to cause reasonable doubt as to whether the outcome might have been different had they not occurred

(ii) that there was evidence of extenuating circumstances which could not reasonably have been made available to the Executive Dean or his/her deputy or Progress Committee, of such a nature as to cause reasonable doubt as to whether the result might have been different had they not occurred

b. The Academic Registrar will refer to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) Any appeal that meets the criteria stated above (a.i and a.ii) will be referred to an Executive Dean (or his/her Deputy) who has no previous involvement with the case, hereafter referred to as the Appointed Dean,

d. Any such appeal shall be forwarded to the appropriate Pro-Vice-Chancellor, who may consult such persons as he or she thinks fit, including the appellant, in arriving at a decision as to whether or not the appeal is well-founded.

c. e If the Pro-Vice-Chancellor Appointed Dean decides that the appeal is not well-founded, he or she shall inform the student in writing, stating his/her reasons for so deciding. The communication of this decision shall, in such cases, constitute the formal dismissal of the appeal.

d. f If the Pro-Vice-Chancellor Appointed Dean decides that the appeal is well-founded then the case shall be referred to the a Progress Appeal Panel consisting ofg.The Progress Appeal Panel shall consist of an Executive Dean or his/her deputy the Appointed Dean and two members of staff from outside the student’s department who have no connection with the case.

e. h.The student shall be invited to attend the meeting of the Progress Appeals Panel and may be accompanied by a student of the University, a member of staff of the University, or an employee of the Students' Union.

f. i If the student is unable to attend the meeting of the Progress Appeal Panel, the meeting will go ahead and the decisions taken will be valid.

g. j The student and the members of the Progress Appeal Panel will have the papers that were made available to the original Executive Dean or his/her deputy/Progress Committee, together with the student's written statement of the appeal, and any documentary evidence to support any extenuating circumstances put forward. It will be open to the Progress Appeal Committee to call such witnesses as it thinks fit. The Executive Dean or his/her deputy who took the decision/chaired or a representative of the original committee (normally the Chair) will have the right normally be required to appear before the Progress Appeal Panel.

h. k After consideration of the case the Progress Appeal Panel shall either dismiss the appeal or decide on one of the courses of action defined under the Powers of Progress Committees listed in section 5 of this document.

i. l The decision of the Progress Appeal Panel may be communicated orally to the student at the conclusion of the meeting. Formal Written notification of the outcome will be sent to the student in every case.

j. m The decision of the Progress Appeal Panel will be final.k. n Any appeal following the formal conclusion of the appeals procedures set out above may be

made on the grounds of procedural irregularities in the appeals process only. A student who wishes to appeal against the outcome of these procedures should write to the Academic Registrar (or nominee) within twenty working days setting out in detail the nature of the evidence to support the claim that there were procedural irregularities in the appeals process. If prima facie there is evidence to support the claim then the case will be reviewed by an alternate a Pro-Vice-Chancellor. If the Pro-Vice-Chancellor determines that there were procedural irregularities in the appeals process then the case will be referred to an appeals panel for consideration, and paragraphs h—m e – j above will apply. The panel would be comprised of academic staff with no previous involvement in the case and would be chaired by an appropriate member of senior academic staff.

l. o The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) provides an independent scheme for the review of student complaints or appeals. When the University’s internal procedures for dealing with complaints and appeals have been exhausted, the University will issue a Completion of Procedures letter. Students wishing to avail themselves of the opportunity of an independent review by the OIA must submit their application to the OIA within twelve months of the issue of the Completion of Procedures letter. Full details of the scheme are available on request and will be enclosed with the Completion of Procedures.