|
|
|
|
|
|
E/9.1 Review of grades and academic rulings |
||||||||||||||||||||
9.1.1 Review of grades This policy should be read in conjunction with the QUT Student Rules and the procedural information provided on the Student Services website. 9.1.1 Review of gradesDuring the course of a teaching period students should discuss their progress in all coursework exercises (including examinations which form part of progressive assessment) with relevant teaching staff, and can expect to be provided with a clear indication of the extent to which they have or have not achieved the objectives set for each assessment item, as provided in the Student Charter ( E/2.2.1 ). Since this step may constitute a significant component of the learning outcomes for the unit, this should be undertaken as soon as possible (normally within 5 working days) after the release of the marks and/or return of the assessment item. Students who are dissatisfied with the final grade received for the unit should initiate the Review of Grade process. Review of grades may lead to no change or to a less favourable or a more favourable outcome for the student . Reviews of passing grades under steps 2 and 3 attract a charge (see schedule of administrative charges ) which is reimbursed if a higher grade is awarded following the review. There is no charge for review of fail grades. Preliminary Step - Clarification Prior to proceeding with the informal and formal processes of the review of grade, the student should have accessed
Step 1 – Informal review at unit coordinator level Following the release of grade for the unit, a student who is dissatisfied with the assessment of an individual item or believes that an error has occurred in the compilation of the overall grade from component assessment items should consult the unit coordinator. If the unit coordinator accepts the student's case, the unit coordinator may recommend to the executive dean, in accordance with E/6.5.5 and relevant faculty policy, that the grade be altered. Step 2 – Formal review at school level If the student remains dissatisfied after completing Step 1, of these procedures, or if the student is unable to obtain clarification of the reason for the grade for a unit, then the student may apply to the registrar for a school level review of the grade normally within 10 working days of the release of the grade for the unit. The application must be supported by a written case. Procedures for making the application are outlined on the Student Services web site ( Review of Grade ). The head of school responsible for the unit in dispute determines the form of the review, which may include an independent re-assessment of the item(s) in dispute. The review must assess whether procedures have been correctly followed, whether the assessment is in accordance with the Unit Outline and whether the assessment is consistent with the assessment criteria, and must address the issues raised in student's written case. The Head of School advises the registrar, normally within 10 working days, of the outcome of the Review with reference to the student's written case. The registrar normally advises students of the outcome within 15 working days of receipt of the application. Step 3 – Formal review at faculty level A student who is dissatisfied with the outcome of the school level review of grade (step 2) for a unit may apply to the registrar for a faculty level review within 5 working days of notification of the outcome. The applicant must resubmit the original request and a written case stating why the previous review was inadequate. The student may modify his/her original written case for review and may include additional reasons or evidence. The application is forwarded through the executive dean of the faculty responsible for the unit to the faculty review committee for consideration within 10 working days of receipt of the application. The faculty review committee is a sub-committee of the faculty academic board comprising, at a minimum, as Chair, the executive dean or nominee, a member of academic staff and a student representative appointed by the faculty academic board, none of whom were involved in previous levels of this review. The quorum of the committee is three. The committee may seek written input from the relevant unit and course coordinators. The committee checks that correct processes have been followed, assesses the adequacy of the school's response to the student's case, and considers any new matters included in the student's written case. If the committee determines that the school level review has been conducted appropriately and the student's case properly answered, the committee endorses the outcome of the review, and so advises the executive dean. If the committee determines that grounds exist for further review it either recommends that the executive dean considers these grounds and makes a decision on the case or it returns the case to the relevant head of school, who considers the grounds and advises the outcome to a reconvened meeting of the committee. The committee considers the response from the head of school and, if satisfied that the school response is appropriate and the student's case properly answered, endorses the outcome of the review, and so advises the executive dean. If the faculty committee is still not satisfied, it advises the outcome and the reasons to the executive dean who then deals executively with the matter. On the advice of the executive dean, the Registrar advises the applicant of the outcome normally within 15 working days of receipt of the application. Advice of the response to the application for review must include a response to the student's case and the reasons for the decision. The faculty committee monitors the number and type of reviews conducted and reports on its activities to the faculty academic board. 9.1.2 Review of academic rulingsStudents who have received notification of an academic ruling made under the Student rules, and who wish to be provided with further information on the basis and implications of the ruling, should contact the relevant faculty office. Examples of areas where academic rulings are made include credit applications, amendment of enrolment program, prerequisite waivers, leave of absence, or special consideration. If, after having received further information, the student believes that an error has been made or that a ruling is unjust, the student may apply for a review in accordance with Student rule 46(2). Application procedures can be found on the Student Services website ( Review of Academic Ruling ). Applications must be submitted to the Registrar within 10 working days of the date of notification of a ruling. The relevant executive dean of faculty determines the form of the review. A review may lead to no change or to either a less favourable or more favourable outcome for the student. The Registrar advises students of the outcome of reviews. 9.1.3 Status of students awaiting the outcome of a reviewThe university will make determinations on reviews as soon as practicable, but will not necessarily resolve any particular case before the close of enrolments for the next teaching period. Students whose review will not be resolved before the commencement of the teaching period (where the delay is not the fault of the student) are permitted to enrol in units within the course of study. Students must consult the course coordinator about the enrolment program they will undertake while awaiting the outcome of a review. When the review process is finalised, the student remains bound by the ruling or by the consequences of the grade which was the subject of the review and, if so determined by the university, is responsible for withdrawing from nominated unit enrolments. There will be no adverse academic or financial consequences provided the withdrawal occurs within five working days of the date of notification of the ruling. Related DocumentsMOPP C/9.3 Procedures for academic dishonesty MOPP E/4.1 Student admission
MOPP E/6.7 Unsatisfactory academic performance and exclusion
Modification History
|
