SUMMARY OF ACADEMIC
POLICY DECISIONS SUMMER 2005
This information note refers to decisions made at the following meetings:
ASC 4 May 2005
ASC 1 June 2005
Senate
Minute numbers are given to indicate the source of the information set out below. Where extracts of minutes are included verbatim, this is indicated by speech marks.
LIST OF CONTENTS
SECTION A FOR ACTION
1. Departmental Student Handbooks
2. Learning Outcomes Working Party
3. GTA Code of Practice
4. Extenuating Circumstances
SECTION B FOR INFORMATION
1. Periodic Reviews
2. New Scheme Approval Procedures for UoES
3. Academic Decision-Making Structures Amendments to Ordinances
4. Amendments to Academic Offences Procedures
5. Code of Practice for Research Degree Students
6. Review of the Effectiveness of the Senate
SECTION A FOR
ACTION BY HEADS OF DEPARTMENT AND CENTRES
1.
Departmental
Student Handbooks (ASC.M.93/05)
Resolved
That departmental student handbooks should be required to include centrally provided summary text about academic offences and extenuating circumstances and URLs to the full text of University policy.
2.
Learning Outcomes Working Party
(ASC.MM.100-103/05) (S.MM.117-121/05) (ASC.M.106/05)
S.MM.117-121/05 read as follows:
Resolved
a) that all students should be required to pass their core courses in both the second and final year and that second years should be given a reassessment opportunity in September. For third year students the reassessment should be in the following June.
A core course could be defined as a course where one or more of the following criteria were met:
i. The course was either a unique site for a learning outcome or one of only two sites for a learning outcome;
ii. The course was essential to meet external professional requirements;
iii. The course was defined to be core, because it was seen as an essential part of a scheme by the department for pedagogic reasons.
Where a course was core, a reassessment opportunity should always be provided and this might include examination resit, reassessment of coursework, or a combination of both. Where the reassessment was of a dissertation or project, it would be for the examination board to determine whether a fresh piece of work would be required or a reworking of previously submitted work. A full-time student should not be permitted to be reassessed on more than fifty percent of the work undertaken in the year.
b) that the Board of Examiners must make its decisions based on the fail mark presented on the grid. The Board must not attempt to discount marks penalties for late work in order to judge whether the student would have passed the course, and thereby have met the learning outcomes, had the penalties not been given.
c) that where a student commits an academic offence and is given a zero for an entire course prior to the culmination of assessment for all elements, the student should be required to undertake the normal assignments and exam for the course and be required to attain the pass mark to demonstrate that s/he has achieved the learning outcomes. The zero will then be applied to the course. If s/he does not achieve a pass mark s/he will have to undertake reassessment but the zero will still be applied. The reassessment opportunity must not expunge the penalty and the transcript will therefore show zero for each attempt.
d) that where a failure to achieve a particular learning outcome is due to extenuating circumstances, the failure should not automatically be condoned. Normally the student should be given the opportunity to be reassessed for an uncapped mark. However, in cases where the Board of Examiners is satisfied that a sufficient volume of work has been completed successfully, it has the power to condone the missing elements and adjust the weighting of assessments in the course;
e) that the University will continue to award Aegrotat degrees, but only to students who have achieved the learning outcomes for their scheme.
The text of ASC.MM.100-103/05 follows:
It was noted that a course that needed to be taken as a pre-requisite for a later course would not necessarily be considered core. It was also accepted that a course could be defined as compulsory but not core if a department insisted that taking it was an essential part of the scheme but passing it was not.
[ASC m]embers agreed that, where a course was core, a reassessment opportunity should always be provided. However, in the case of courses designated as core to meet external accreditation requirements, passing a reassessment need not be compulsory where an alternative progression route was available. For example, in the Department of Law students who failed courses required by the Law Society or Bar Council could progress onto a non-qualifying law degree.
[ASC m]embers agreed that, in order to ensure equity, reassessment of courses must be determined by the scheme a student is registered on, meaning that not all students taking a course designated as core for some schemes might be entitled to a reassessment opportunity. It was hoped that, in the future, the student record database would be able to flag automatically which students were entitled to a reassessment opportunity, using information provided by departments in scheme structure documents.
Having agreed that an opportunity for reassessment should be provided for core courses, [ASC m]embers considered what form the reassessment should take. [ASC m]embers concluded that an examination board could require submission of coursework, or a resit examination or both. They noted that this was current practice in respect to first years. For second year students it was agreed that the reassessment should take place in September. For third year students the reassessment should be in the following June. Where the reassessment was of a dissertation or project, it would be for the examination board to determine whether a fresh piece of work would be required or a reworking of previously submitted work. It was agreed that a full-time student should not be permitted to be reassessed on more than fifty percent of the work undertaken in the year.
ASC.MM.106/05 relates to learning outcomes:
i. that a caveat about accuracy, similar to that given in the Prospectus, should be included in all programme specifications. Students should also be informed that the scheme structure for the second and final year was normally fixed by the end of the students first year, although it might sometimes be necessary to make changes after this point;
ii. that information about the distribution of learning outcomes should be published to students either in the module map format or as text, until such time as they are available on the web;
iii. that departments should adopt the principle that a pass at the course level demonstrates that the learning outcomes for a course have been achieved;
iv. that University-wide terminology should be devised to describe the development of a learning outcome.
3.
GTA Code of
Practice (ASC.MM.169-170/05)
ASC approved amendments to the Code of Practice on Teaching and Demonstrating by Graduate Students including the Person Specification. These relate principally to English language competence and training opportunities. The revisions to the Code of Practice are set out in Appendix A. The Code of Practice, together with the person specification, is also available at: www.essex.ac.uk/quality/pages/graduateteachingassistants.htm.
4.
Extenuating
Circumstances (S.MM.128-131/05)
Resolved
a) that the Chair of the Working Party on Extenuating Circumstances should be asked to produce guidelines for extenuating lateness, in consultation with Deans and drawing on existing models both internal and external to the University. These guidelines should be approved by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Standards) on behalf of Academic Standards Committee and the Senate in advance of the autumn term;
b) that the guidelines for extenuating lateness should be publicised to students at the beginning of the 2005/06 academic year:
c)
that, subject to guidelines being in place by the start
of the autumn term, the recommendations of the Working Party on Extenuating
Circumstances, with revisions as detailed in Appendix B, should be
accepted and the policy of zero tolerance for late submission of coursework and
the procedure for extenuating lateness should be adopted with effect from
2005/06;
d) that an advisory group be constituted by ASC to oversee implementation of the policy and to provide advice on difficult cases, for one year in the first instance.
SECTION B FOR
INFORMATION
1.
Periodic
Reviews (ASC.MM.118-119/05)
(ASC.MM.176-177/05)
ASC.MM.118-119/05 relate to the separation of Periodic Reviews for UG
and PG provision:
Following a decision of the Committee during 2002/03, Periodic Reviews
during 2004/05 had continued to permit undergraduate and postgraduate provision
to be reviewed at the same time (ASC.M.66/03).
By
dividing the event into two parts, with undergraduate schemes considered in the
first part and postgraduate schemes in the second, joint Periodic Reviews
events were designed to allow sufficient time to
concentrate on distinctive undergraduate and postgraduate issues. However, on balance, the
i)
that undergraduate and postgraduate schemes should
always be considered at separate Periodic Review events;
ASC.MM.176-177/05 relate to the dissemination of good practice
identified in Periodic Reviews:
.The
Periodic Review reports also identified good practice, but there was not a
systematic mechanism for disseminating this information.
Resolved:
that good
practice identified in Periodic Review reports should be discussed at the end
of each academic year at a Heads of Department meeting.
2.
New Scheme
Approval Procedures for UoES (ASC.MM.156-157/05)
The proposal for a new sub-committee of all the
School Boards to consider new scheme proposals for UoES
would report to the appropriate School Board.
It would not consider proposals for approval for publicity purposes and
would not vary the new approvals process approved by Senate in March 2005. The sub-committee was designed to provide the
necessary expert knowledge of the special requirements that apply to Southend
developments.
i.
that the UoES Validation
Committee (SVC) be established with effect from October 2005, to be chaired by
the Dean of Learning Partnerships;
ii.
that the Chair of ASC should
finalise the membership and terms of reference of the SVC, in consultation with
the Deans, as appropriate.
3. Academic Decision-Making Structures
Amendments to Ordinances (S.MM.132-133/05)
Senate and Council approved amendments to Ordinances 22 and 35 to the effect that Senates delegation of its powers to School Boards to determine rules of assessment is withdrawn from October 2005/06. The revisions to Ordinances 22 and 35, and a consequential amendment to the terms of reference of Academic Standards Committee, are set out in Appendix C.
4.
Amendments
to Academic Offences Procedures (S.M.135/05)
The Senate approved the following amendments to the Academic Offences procedures (new text underlined):
A1. Academic
offences include:
a. Plagiarism, that is, using or copying the
work of others (whether written, printed or in any other form) without proper
acknowledgement in any coursework.
b. Repeating work previously submitted for
another assignment without full acknowledgement of the extent to which that
previous work has been used.
c. Falsifying data or evidence.
d. Submitting a fraudulent claim of extenuating
circumstances.
e. Assisting another student to commit an
academic offence.
f. Submitting written work produced
collaboratively unless this is explicitly allowed.
g. Copying the work of another candidate or
otherwise communicating with another candidate in an examination.
h. Introducing any written, printed or
electronically stored information into an examination other than material
expressly permitted in the instructions for that examination.
i.
defacing
or interfering with exam script booklets.
This list is not exhaustive.
C5.
Prior to the
submission of a doctoral thesis, allegation of academic offences by research
students shall be dealt with in accordance with the Academic Offences
Procedures. Where an offence is alleged
by one or both of the Examiners during the examination process, the examination
must be suspended and the allegation referred to the Dean of the
5. Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research
Programmes (S.M.43/05)
The Senate approved the introduction of the Code of Practice for Research Degree Programmes, which is available at: www.essex.ac.uk/academic/docs/regs/prdcode.shtm.
6.
Review of
the Effectiveness of the Senate (S.MM.179-180/05)
Following the review of the effectiveness of the Council, which took place in 2004/05, a Working Party ot review the effectiveness of the Senate has been established with the following terms of reference:
a) to conduct a review of the effectiveness of the Senate, including a review of:
(i) the role of Senate, including its relation to other committees and to Council;
(ii) the composition and membership of Senate and its committees.
b) to make recommendations to Senate accordingly.
Joanne Tallentire
Senior Assistant
Registrar
September 2005
CIRCULATION
FOR ACTION:
Heads of Department
Directors of
Areas and Study Abroad Office
Centre for Psychoanalytic Studies
Centre for Theoretical Studies
English Language Teaching Centre
Human Rights Centre
Departmental Administrators (including Centres listed above)
FOR INFORMATION:
Vice-Chancellor
Pro-Vice-Chancellors
Deans
Academic Registrar
Academic Section Administrators
Code of Practice on Teaching and Demonstrating by
Graduate Students
A.
Selection
(Graduate Teaching Assistants only)
i)
Vacancies
for GTAs should be advertised in departments and a person specification
provided.
ii)
All
short-listed GTAs should be interviewed by the Head of Department or his/her
nominee, and one other member of teaching staff, before initial appointment and
their suitability assessed in relation to the essential criteria, including
their English language competence.
iii)
Feedback
should be provided on candidates' interview performance and suitability for the
GTA role on request, after the selection process is complete, and all
candidates invited to interview should be informed of their entitlement to
request feedback. Candidates who are
not selected on the grounds of English language competence should be advised on
the English language courses available to them.
B.
Training
and development of GTAs and Demonstrators
i)
Departments
should ensure that all new GTAs and Demonstrators undertake a Learning and
Teaching Unit [Staff Development Office] training course, or an alternative
programme of training proposed by the Head of Department and approved in
writing by the LTU. [University Staff Development Officer.]
ii)
Training
for GTAs and Demonstrators (wherever delivered) should include training in
sensitivity to cultural issues, including language and special needs.
iii)
Departments
should normally provide written information on teaching arrangements and
responsibilities within the department for GTAs and Demonstrators.
iv)
Early in
each academic year departments should organise a briefing meeting for new GTAs
and Demonstrators providing formal induction on departmental teaching and
assessment practices, student progress procedures, the role of the GTA and guidance
on academic content. At this meeting or separately departments should provide
appropriate training on health and safety.
v)
Departments
should normally hold, at the end of the Autumn term
and at the end of each academic year, a seminar/workshop for GTAs, aimed at
sharing good practice and providing a preliminary induction for potential new
GTAs.
vi)
Departments
should maintain systems for monitoring the quality of teaching by GTAs, which
should include documented observation of teaching, the dates of observations
and names of observers to be held on departmental records. Each GTA should be
allocated a mentor, normally the relevant course/module supervisor.
vii)
Departments
should advise GTAs and Demonstrators of appropriate training opportunites, including those provided by the Learning and
Teaching Unit and should also keep the [Staff Development Office]
LTU informed of any emerging training needs of GTAs and Demonstrators.
viii)
Departments
should encourage and support GTAs who may wish to develop portfolios for
accreditation.
C.
Teaching
and Demonstrating duties
i)
Teaching
should normally be class teaching or demonstrating; lecturing duties must be
associated with a student's research interest, and require prior approval from
the Dean of the
ii)
Where
GTAs are asked to have office hours, they should be paid appropriately and
provided with a suitable room.
D.
Departmental
organisation (Graduate Teaching Assistants only)
i)
Departments
should make every effort to ensure the integration of GTAs into course teaching
teams, and their inclusion in the information and communication networks
appropriate to their role as team members.
ii)
GTAs
should be represented at departmental meetings where there is discussion on
teaching issues.
iii)
Wherever
possible, GTAs should be listed alongside academic staff in course details,
reading lists and departmental booklets and included on staff e-mail lists and
lists of office hours.
iv)
GTAs
should be provided with appropriate resources to carry out their teaching
duties.