Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Policies Modification
Please note that we reserve the right to amend these policies at any point in the future.
We will make every effort to notify current students via the online portal of any changes
that have been made to these policies. The most recent version of these policies can
always be found on our website, at http://roehampton-online.com/.
It is important to remember that this, as detailed on the website, is the only source of
information for students pertaining to our academic policies. Therefore, you should
always refer to the website above any other source when requiring clarification on any
issue listed on the content page.
Mitigating Circumstances
If circumstances beyond your immediate control negatively affect your performance in
the overall module assessments, you may ask for these mitigating circumstances to be
taken into account in order to:
Please refer to the Mitigating Circumstances Policy and Procedure section within this
document for further information.
Context
These guidelines refer only to those programmes of study offered online in partnership
with Laureate Online Education and do not include any programmes, however similar,
offered on campus.
If you have failed to attain the overall pass mark for a module (50% or more), you are
normally permitted one re-sit of that module. A second re-sit will be allowed for the
intake module of your programme.
For the intake module, if you have been admitted to a programme on the basis that you
are a non-traditional entrant and must pass the module before you can be fully
registered on the programme, you will have to pass the intake module before
proceeding with your studies. This means that, if you are a non-traditional entrant, you
cannot enroll to module two before you pass the intake module.
Re-sit will take two forms. Based on the conditions outlined below, a re-sit will mean
either
re-submission of the module Final Project, or
re-take of the entire 12 week module.
Conditions
Component Grades
The conditions for re-sitting failed modules are as follows:
1. If you achieve a module grade which is in the condonable range (40% and
<50%) and you are awarded 50% or more in the shared activity, you will be
required to re-submit only the Final Project.
2. If you achieve a module grade which is in the condonable range (40% and
<50%) and your grade in the shared activity is below 50%, then you will be
required to re- take the entire module.
3. If you achieve a module grade lower than 40%, you will be required to re-take the
module regardless of whether or not you have achieved 40% or more in the shared
activity.
The table below provides a quick summary of the conditions for re-sitting failed
modules:
Final Module Grade
Shared Activity
Grade
Option
50% or more
Re-take Module
--
Re-take Module
You are normally allowed to re-sit the intake module twice* and other modules once.
If you fail to meet the required standard (50% or above) after exhausting your re-sit
opportunity/opportunities, the recommendation to the Examination Board will be that
your studies be terminated.
*For the intake module only,
Students who did not submit the final project during the first attempt at the module and
the first re-sit will not be allowed any further re-sit opportunity, unless there is a
successful MCC claim.
Students who are invited to resubmit and do not take advantage of the opportunity (i.e.
do not resubmit their final project) will be required to retake the module.
Re-Using Your Own Work
We would strongly advise you to not re-use work you submitted last time you
took the module.
Work submitted for assessment should be work written by you specifically for this
class. Although copying your own work is not regarded as plagiarism, you will not
receive a passing grade for the new submission unless your new submission is original
and you have included substantial new discussion and analysis. If you do choose to reuse any part of previously submitted work you must always cite and reference your
previous work.
Impact on Grading
The mark awarded for a re-sit will be capped at the pass mark of 50%, in line with the
Universitys policy on grade penalties for re-sits (these can be found here). In the case
of re-submission, the capped mark applies only to the Final Project and not to the
overall Module grade.
If you have made a successful case for Mitigating Circumstances, you may be permitted
by the Local Programme Examination Board to re-sit a module without penalty. Please
refer to the section on Mitigating Circumstances Policy and Procedure within this
document for further information.
Condonation
The Local Programme Examination Board will have the discretion to approve a
condoned pass if you fail to achieve the 50% pass rate in a module but you have a grade
within the range of 40% and <50%. Only one 20 credit module with condonation is
permitted for the Postgraduate Diploma or Masters. The Examination Board will
consider your performance profile before awarding a condonation. This will normally
take place after completion of all taught modules. If you have achieved a modular grade
of 40% and <50%, you are encouraged to re-sit the module immediately rather than
await a review by the Local Programme Examination Board.
Mitigating Circumstances
If circumstances beyond your immediate control negatively affect your performance in
the overall module assessments, you may ask for these mitigating circumstances to be
taken into account in order to:
Please refer to the Mitigating Circumstances Policy and Procedure section of this
document for further information.
10
It is your responsibility to report any circumstances that you wish to be taken into
consideration. Independent documentary evidence, such as medical certificates, must
be provided in all cases to verify mitigating circumstances. If you wish to claim
mitigating circumstances, you should discuss this with your Student Support Manager.
Definitions
Mitigating circumstances are factors which have a detrimental effect on your academic
work. You may ask for mitigating circumstances to be taken into account in order to:
significant, meaning that they should have had a clearly detrimental effect on
your academic work,
relevant, meaning that they must relate directly to the timing of the class,
assessment or deadline in question,
outside your control, meaning that the effect could not be avoided,
counteracted or reduced by you taking reasonable steps in preparation or in
response.
11
Submission of Requests
All requests for mitigating circumstances to be taken into account must be submitted by
you using the Mitigating Circumstances Form. Please contact your Student Support
Manager to attain this form. Requests from third parties may not normally be
considered. A discussion between you and a member of staff does not constitute a request
for mitigating circumstances.
You should submit such requests as soon as possible, preferably within a week, after
the events under consideration occur.
In the Mitigating Circumstances Form, you should set out in writing all the relevant
factors, including details of:
Only that information which is included in your written submission may be considered.
Requests for mitigating circumstances to be taken into account must be submitted, in
any case, no later than one week before the meeting of the next Programme
Examination Board and the result of the assessment in question is approved. The
private or confidential nature of the circumstances will not be accepted as grounds for
submitting a late request.
Supporting Documentation
Independent documentary evidence, such as medical certificates, must be provided in all
cases to verify mitigating circumstances. The University reserves the right to check the
authenticity of all documentation submitted as part of a request for mitigating
circumstances to be taken into account. If you submit inauthentic documentation, or
misrepresent material facts in the request, you may be subject to proceedings under the
Disciplinary Regulations.
All evidence must be submitted with the initial request. The University may
exceptionally decide to accept documentary evidence which is presented at a later date
if it is clear that the delay could not have been avoided or reduced by you taking
reasonable steps to obtain and provide evidence at the appropriate time. In such cases,
however, the delay may limit the action which is available to the University in response
to your circumstances.
The nature of the evidence you provide will depend on the circumstances in question.
As far as possible the evidence should come from a relevant official body. For medical
conditions, this should be a note from a suitably qualified medical practitioner who has
12
the circumstances described are not significant, not relevant or not outside
your control, or
the request was submitted late without acceptable cause, or was
submitted without adequate supporting evidence.
13
14
Postgraduate Diplomas are classified on the following scale from the average mark
which has been reached using the relevant calculation set out above.
Distinction
Merit
Pass
70-100%
60-69%
50-59%
15
Assessment Guidance
Approval of grades, student progression, and recommendation of the award of degrees
will be the responsibility of the Main Examination Board (MEB) and the Local
Examination Board (LEB). All grades awarded on the online programmes will be
recorded and communicated to you as provisional until they are approved by the MEB.
Only one 20 credit module is permitted to be condoned for the Postgraduate Diploma,
or Masters, provided the mark achieved falls within the condonable range of 40% to
49%. If you fail a module you will be expected to re-sit it immediately. The Examination
Board will consider your overall performance profile before condoning a module.
Please refer to the Guidelines for Re-Sitting Modules section of this document for
further information on condonation.
Normally one re-sit is allowed for all modules, including the Management Research
Project. However, a second re-sit may be allowed for the intake module. When there
are exceptional circumstances, the Examination Board may grant a second re-sit
opportunity where appropriate in the context of your overall academic progress. Please
refer to the Guidelines for Re-Sitting Modules section of this document for further
information.
Assessment Methods
Criteria used to assess written assessments and presentations are provided below.
These criteria will be applied to elements of the Final Project as appropriate.
In addition, in most modules you will be assessed on your contributions to Shared
Activities and reflection on learning gained throughout the module. Criteria for
summative assessment of these activities are provided in the Module Assessment
Criteria section of this document.
You will receive formative feedback from your instructor on Shared Activities and
Individual Assignments throughout the module to support your learning and improve
your performance on final summative assessments. You will be provided with rubrics
for each assignment that incorporate the generic assessment criteria, as well as specific
requirements for that assignment, to clarify expectations for assignments and provide a
mechanism for formative feedback.
16
17
Your assignment broadly answers the question set (although there may be some
irrelevant material) and you have analysed your data (although perhaps somewhat
superficially) and related it to the problem. Generally your arguments are sound
(although not always fully supported).
Your English is comprehensible (although there may be some errors). Your assignment
has a clear beginning, middle and an end. Arguments are referenced although the
formatting of those references may be incorrect.
You will not pass (less than 50%) if:
You use few or inappropriate secondary sources and cannot demonstrate that you have
understood what you have read. You use primary sources that have not been
systematically collected.
You do not answer the question set. You merely reproduce rather than analyse your
data.
The different parts of your assignment do not relate to each other. Your English cannot
be understood. You do not reference your sources.
Criteria for Shared Activities
An excellent answer (70% or above): Distinction
You demonstrated a high level ability to work effectively in a group with peers from
diverse organisational and cultural backgrounds, displaying initiative, sensitivity, and
strong collaborative skills.
You extended the dialogue in multiple ways by offering constructive critique, wellsupported alternative viewpoints, probing questions, and relevant additional resources;
your comments made a strong contribution to others learning.
You displayed a high level of critical self-reflection, providing thorough explanations
and relevant examples of how you used positive learning strategies and ways in which
you might have improved your learning. You coherently articulated a number of key
ideas gained from shared activities throughout the module and how you plan to use
these in future study and practice.
Your contributions are written in clear, concise English. They are well structured with
the arguments presented in a logical order and making a coherent whole.
18
19
Grades
Normally the evaluation of the Management Research Project by the two assessors will fall
within one of the grade bands defined below.
Defined grade bands:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
90-100
80-89
70-79
60-69
50-59
40-49
Below 40
If the two assessors do not agree on the outcome of the assessment, there is a well established
Quality Assurance process in place to independently review the assessment. However, this may
take an additional week or two to complete.
20
21
Mitigating circumstances are factors which have a detrimental effect on academic work.
Students may ask for mitigating circumstances to be taken into account in order to:
explain failure to submit the MRP on time and request an extension of the deadline for
the submission of the MRP
Mitigating circumstances must be:
Last updated on: 17 February 2015
22
significant, meaning that they should have had a clearly detrimental effect on the
students ability to submit the MRP
relevant, meaning that they must relate directly to the timing of the class, assessment or
deadline in question
outside the students control, meaning that the effect could not be avoided, counteracted
or reduced by the student taking reasonable steps in preparation or in response.
Submission of Requests
All requests for mitigating circumstances to be taken into account must be submitted by the
student using the Management Research Project Mitigating Circumstances Form. Students
should contact the Student Support Team to obtain this form. Requests from third parties may
not normally be considered. A discussion between the student and a member of staff does not
constitute a request for mitigating circumstances. Support statements from MRP Supervisors
will not be considered as relevant documentation.
The student should submit such requests as soon as possible, and no later than two weeks after
the events under consideration occur.
The deadline for submission of the Mitigating Circumstances Form and supporting evidence is
one week before the MRP submission deadline. In exceptional circumstances students may be
allowed to submit such requests no later than the expiration of the deadline of the MRP. Where
a mitigating circumstances request is submitted less than one week prior to the deadline for
the MRP, the MCC reserve the right to refuse to consider such a request if there is no evidence to
suggest that the student could not have submitted the request by the one week deadline.
Requests for mitigating circumstances received after the MRP deadline date will not normally be
accepted.
In the Management Research Project Mitigating Circumstances Form, the student should set out
in writing all the relevant factors, including details of:
Independent documentary evidence, such as medical certificates, must be provided in all cases
to verify mitigating circumstances. The University reserves the right to check the authenticity of
all documentation submitted as part of a request for mitigating circumstances to be taken into
account. If the student submits inauthentic documentation, or misrepresents material facts in
the request, they may be subject to proceedings under the Disciplinary Regulations.
All evidence must be submitted with the initial request. The University may exceptionally decide
to accept documentary evidence which is presented at a later date if it is clear that the delay
could not have been avoided or reduced by the student taking reasonable steps to obtain and
Last updated on: 17 February 2015
23
Requests for mitigating circumstances to be taken into account may be rejected without further
consideration if
the circumstances described are not significant, not relevant or not outside the control of
the student, or
the request was submitted late without acceptable cause, or
was submitted without adequate supporting evidence.
A Mitigating Circumstances Committee (MCC), chaired by the Academic Director of Laureate
Online Education, will review the mitigating circumstances evidence that the student provides
relating to the submission of the MRP and make a decision whether to accept this or reject it.
The MCC works under the authority of the Programme Examination Board, and the findings of
the MCC are reported to the Programme Examination Board at its next meeting.
Decisions on Mitigating Circumstances
Submission of requests for mitigating circumstances will be acknowledged and will normally be
dealt with within two working weeks. If the Mitigating Circumstances Committee (MCC) does
not agree that there have been mitigating circumstances, then, normally, the response will be
that the deadline for the submission of the MRP will not be extended. If the MCC finds that
mitigating circumstances were a factor, the response will be to specify a new deadline for the
submission of the MRP.
Mitigating Circumstances are unrelated to the assessment of the academic outcome of the MRP.
It is important to note that presentation of mitigating circumstances evidence does not
guarantee that a concession will be applied, and accepted mitigating circumstances do not lead
to marks being changed.
The student should refer to the Appeals process if they wish to appeal against the decision of the
MCC.
24
Academic Integrity
Expectations of You as a Student
As a post-graduate student you should be capable of showing originality in your
presentation and application of knowledge, and in addressing problems and answering
questions. It is expected that your originality of thought is informed by an
understanding of current scholarship and research, and it is anticipated that you will
include properly cited and referenced quotations and arguments in your work.
A student submitting work for assessment is not permitted to:
use the work of others without acknowledgement,
to present falsified data,
and/or, without official approval, to co-operate with another person in the
production of work which is then submitted for assessment as the students
own.
Academic Honesty Declaration
You are expected to act with integrity in relation to the production and representation of
academic work. Academic integrity is central to University life and requires, in
particular, that students are honest and responsible in acknowledging the contributions
of others in their work. We, therefore, ask all students to sign a declaration to that
effect at the start of each module.
Standards for Academic Practice
In order to assure the University that the work is your own and that the work and
opinions of others have been acknowledged, you must take care to follow the
appropriate standards for academic practice in your subject. This includes:
1. Putting all direct quotations within quotation marks to distinguish
them as not being your original words.
2. Providing a full reference of all sources (books, articles, web sites,
newspapers, images, data sources etc) which have been used in the
preparation of an assignment, using a recognised referencing
system (as specified in programme and module guidelines).
3. Properly citing the sources of the arguments and ideas in an assignment
using a recognised citation and referencing system (as specified in
programme and module guidelines). It is not only quotations that must
be referenced but also paraphrasing of the arguments of others and the
use of their ideas, even if explained in your own words.
25
Quotation marks around all work taken directly from a source other
than your own.
A citation [preferably in brackets] before or after the quotation or the
paraphrased argument.
A full reference in the bibliography which enables the source to be
reviewed by the reader, if required.
If you fail to quote, cite or reference your work correctly, this may result from poor
scholarship and poor application of the required referencing style and may not be
treated as an attempt to cheat, i.e. you may fail to reference appropriately, or to
adequately identify the source of the material which you use, through inexperience or
carelessness. The Faculty member who is assessing the work concerned should
evaluate whether the extent of the mis-cited work constitutes an issue of Poor
Academic Quality or Academic Misconduct.
26
27
Fail Grades
A significant amount of incorrectly referenced work may lead to a Fail grade being
awarded by the Faculty member. In this event, the Faculty member will decide
whether this case falls under the category of Academic Misconduct.
The Fail grade will be explained in your feedback regarding the work, and a formal
letter will be sent to you warning you of the consequences of repeat incidents. The Fail
grade due to significant failure to correctly cite and reference will be reported to the
next Local Progamme Examination Board.
Repeat occurrences of your failure to correctly cite and reference, or major breaches
of the guidelines on academic quality, will be considered as an issue of Academic
Misconduct.
Academic Misconduct
Definitions of Academic Misconduct
The University of Roehampton, London considers academic misconduct as an academic
offence under its Disciplinary Regulations. It defines this as:
an attempt to obtain, or to assist another person in obtaining, an unfair
advantage in an academic assessment. The offence may occur in relation to
any piece of work and any component within it, whether it has been submitted
for formal assessment, feedback or review. The work may take any form,
including but not limited to words, graphs and images, notations, data, code,
ideas and judgments.
The University of Roehampton, London uses the following definitions in considering
academic offences:
Plagiarism
It shall be an offence for you to present another persons published or unpublished
work in any quantity without adequately identifying it and citing its source, except
for the provisions of the section above regarding Poor Academic Quality.
Duplication
It shall be an offence for you to resubmit work in any quantity without
acknowledgement or without adequate redevelopment to make it novel and
appropriate to the assessment, except for the provisions noted above under poor
Academic Quality; this includes the resubmission of work which was previously
submitted at another institution.
28
29
Please note that a complaint which seeks to dispute the academic judgment of a faculty member
will not be allowed under any circumstances.
If a student is uncertain if their concern should be addressed as a complaint or appeal, they
should seek advice from their Student Support Manager before beginning the process.
A complaint can often be resolved relatively easily and informally at an early stage. A student
should normally discuss, in the first instance, with the person(s) most directly concerned with
the complaint. Faculty members and other staff are always prepared to discuss problems or
concerns raised by students before they become formal complaints. Although the following
procedure sets out a series of steps open to a student in raising, lodging and pursuing a
complaint, a satisfactory resolution can often be found at the informal stage.
The procedure detailed below includes a series of stages which will be followed by both the
student and the University. Our objective is to:
Acknowledge the complaint;
Investigate the complaint fairly and thoroughly on the basis of facts;
Provide a complete and prompt response.
30
31
We ask the student to use this form to ensure they provide all the information required to
carefully review the complaint. In the form, the student is asked to describe what attempts he or
she has made to resolve the complaint informally; if the student does not appear to have made a
satisfactory attempt to do this, he or she will be asked to do so before the complaint progresses
to the formal stage. In the form the student is also asked to state what remedy s/he wants
without prejudice to the final decision. At this point Laureate may contact the student for
further information. Academic complaints will be assigned to an appropriate academic director
for resolution. Note that a complaint which seeks to dispute the academic judgment of a faculty
member will not be allowed and will be returned to student. Service complaints will be assigned
to the relevant Laureate department manager. The assigned member of staff will then contact
the student and endeavour to provide a formal response normally within 15 working days.
Stage Four: Escalate the Complaint Within Laureate Online Education
In the event that the student believes that the complaint was not handled in compliance with
our standard of procedure, the student has the right to request that the case be escalated to a
senior Laureate representative (this would depend on the nature of the complaint but would
normally be the Director of Student Experience or the Chief Academic Officer).
If this is the case, the student should email a request to escalate the complaint to
complaints@ohecampus.com. The subject line of the email should clearly state Complaint
Escalation and include the students name and ID.
In this email the student should state:
32
33
Progression
Doubling up modules
Due to the academic requirements and workload of our modules, we encourage students to
study one module at a time. Students who wish to double up on their module studies must
obtain formal approval from the Programme Director for their programme before enrolling for
the second module.
You should discuss with Student Support the additional time and study implications that
doubling up on modules may have on your progression and on other areas of your life. You
must also be sure that you have met the following criteria before considering a request to
double up on modules:
a.
b.
c.
d.
NOTE: If you submit a request to double up on modules before completing module 3, any
approval to double up will be dependent on you passing the module you are currently in.
A completed Doubling Up Modules Request Form should be submitted through Student Support
to the Programme Director for consideration at least two weeks prior to the start of the
modules in question. Late requests may not be considered. All requests to double up on
modules must include:
Reason and justification for the request to study two modules at the same time
Evidence to demonstrate how you will devote the Universitys requirement for 200 study
hours per 20 credit module.
Approval to study more than one module at a time is an academic decision based on a students
individual ability to manage an increased workload. There may be restrictions in some
programmes on doubling up. You should check with the Student Support Team before planning
your studies. Approval is not guaranteed even if the you fulfill the criteria above.
34
Student Representatives
A student representational structure has been put in place to provide opportunities for students
to provide constructive feedback and engage in the quality of their programmes and learning
expereience. The University and Laureate Online Education value student involvement in the
quality of their programmes and learning experience and believe that student feedback and
input can have a positive influence on the delivery and development of our programmes. Being a
Student Representative offers a fantastic opportunity to interact with other students, help
improve your programme and learning experience and provide valuable feedback that can help
shape future developments. The role of the Student Representative is ideal for anyone who
wants to get involved and make a positive difference.
A Student Representative is a student on a programme elected by their fellow students to
represent them and hold the position for twelve months. Initially two Student Representatives
will be elected for each online programme. This will be monitored and further Representatives
will be elected as required.
Student Representatives collect feedback from their fellow students on issues ranging from the
content and structure of programmes to communication and resources. They then share this
feedback with senior academics and staff from Laureate Online Education through the online
synchronous Staff-Student Liaison Committee (SSLC) meetings. These meetings are held via
teleconference, so a students geographical location is no bar to them becoming a Student
Representative.
The outcomes of the SSLC meetings are discussed at the Local Programme Board which is
responsible for the development of the programmes. The feedback allows the University to
consider any changes, improvements or additions that need to be made to the programme
content, learning and teaching strategies, student support, etc.. This means that Student
Representative play an important role in and make a valuable contribution to the overall
student experience and future developments.
35
36
37
Academic Regulations
To read the academic regulations for the University of Roehampton, view the following
link:
http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/programmedetails/acregsver9contents.asp
Disciplinary Regulations
To read the disciplinary regulations for the University of Roehampton view the
following webpage:
http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/disciplinaryregulations/index.html
(NOTE: New regulations apply to programmes, as detailed 2nd paragraph from bottom)
38
For full details of the policy on Doubling up modules, please refer to the Academic Policies at
http://roehampton-online.com/Privacy%20Policy.aspx.
Students are encouraged to discuss this with the Student Support team before submitting a request.
Such request can only be submitted after successful completion of at least 60 credits of taught modules.
A request must be submitted at least two weeks prior to the start of the modules in question.
The completed request form and supporting documentation must be submitted to the Programme Director via
email.
Such requests are normally declined if no supporting evidence is received.
Student Number:
Student Name (Last Name, First Name):
Programme of Study:
Programme Start Date:
Number and name of module(s) completed:
Please list out the modules you completed in chronological order.
Modules in question:
Please list out the modules you would like to double up.
39
Supporting Documentation:
Please list all supporting documentation that you will be sending with this form.
Student Declaration
By submitting this form I confirm that all the information contained in this statement is accurate and complete
to the best of my knowledge. I consent to the information being used by the faculty member in the consideration
of the doubling up modules request, and understand that the information will be treated in the strictest
confidence.
40
Student Number:
Student Name (Last Name, First Name):
Programme of Study:
Programme Start Date:
Successfully Completed Modules:
Please list out the modules you have successfully completed to date.
ELECTION STATEMENT
Please limit the election statement to 1-2 A4 pages.
Country of
Residence
Professional and
Educational
Experience
Personal
Information
41
Students Signature
Date
Student Declaration
By submitting this form I confirm that all the information contained in this statement is accurate and complete
to the best of my knowledge. I consent to the information being used in the consideration of the student
representative.
42
Student Number:
Student Name (Last Name, First Name):
Programme of Study:
Name of Module in question:
State Date of this Module:
Name of Module Instructor:
Assessment(s) in question:
Please indicate the assessment(s) in question.
Supporting Documentation:
Please list all supporting documentation that you will be sending with this form.
Student Declaration
By submitting this form I confirm that all the information contained in this statement is accurate and complete
to the best of my knowledge. I consent to the information being used by the faculty member in the consideration
of the deadline extension request, and understand that the information will be treated in the strictest
confidence.
43