 |
 |
Dear all, At Loughborough, we are currently reviewing our practices in relation to 'impaired performance' - i.e. the procedures that are followed in determining progression, or degree classification where a student misses an assessment, or has their academic performance impaired because of extraneous circumstances (for example illness). As part of this process, we are interested in comparing our existing approach with the procedures followed by other institutions. I would be very grateful, therefore, if you could spare a few minutes to answer the question below, or point me in the direction of any policy you have that covers this issue. Please provide a brief outline of the procedures for dealing with claims of 'impaired performance' or 'mitigating evidence' at your institution. Specifically: a) Who (or what body) is responsible for taking decisions on claims? (e.g. at Loughborough, Exam Boards are ultimately responsible for determining whether mitigating circumstances are taken into account). b) How many claims are made each year (by UGs and PGs if this breakdown is available); what proportion of claims are successful? c) What are the possible outcomes of a successful claim (e.g. At Loughborough, students may be granted a permitted (uncapped) repeat attempt at the assessment, or they may have their module marks increased)? Many thanks in advance, Chris