Welcome to the University of Exeter - Clinical Psychology
This handbook contains general University information and programme governance.
We are pleased to welcome you to the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme. This training is part of our highly successful clinical training portfolio that is delivered through Clinical Education Development and Research (CEDAR). The portfolio includes the Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, the MSc Psychological Therapies and the IAPT programmes for adults and children. We have a firm commitment to evidence based psychological practice and as such we endeavour to ensure all of our training programmes are firmly embedded within current research. This commitment is in no small way aided through the Mood Disorders Centre which is involved in undertaking clinical research which has national and international significance.
These are exciting and challenging times for us all. The team of highly experienced clinical trainers will endeavour to deliver the highest quality IAPT training to enable you to work competently and effectively as an evidence-based practitioner in CBT, parenting, systemic practice and supervision or as an effective leader supporting transformation in your services.
It is likely that you will find the training intensive and challenging, but hopefully enjoyable and especially practice enhancing.
University
- To provide an education for programme members intended to give them competence in their chosen discipline, and to encourage them to develop their intellectual capabilities within an institution that is committed to advancing research, scholarship and learning, and to disseminating knowledge.
Educational Aims of Psychology
- To provide an education of high quality across a range of areas of psychology in a stimulating and supportive environment that is enriched by research and/or current practice in the discipline where appropriate.
- To provide training in scientific skills of problem analysis, research design, evaluation of empirical evidence and dissemination in the context of psychology.
- To provide a range of academic and key skills that will prepare our programme members for employment, future study, or training for professional practice.
- To equip programme members with a range of methodological skills, advanced specialist knowledge, and experience of communication of the results of research, which can allow them to function as effective research students or as researchers in an academic or applied setting.
Specific Aims of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Programme
- To provide programme members with the opportunity to assimilate and understand IAPT psychological therapies.
- To provide programme members with the opportunity to gain the capacity for independent, accountable and competency based clinical practice.
- To provide programme members with the required knowledge, understanding and clinical competence to work effectively within the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies service development.
Lived Experience Group
- The Lived Experience Group (LEG) is a group of people with a Lived Experience of Depression or Bipolar Disorder, and people who are carers of individuals currently experiencing these mood disorders.
- LEG members use their lived experience to support the work of the Mood Disorders Centre (MDC) and the Psychology Department at the University of Exeter.
- The LEG does this through active involvement in the research work, clinical work and teaching carried out within the MDC and Psychology Department.
- The LEG also supports other activities within the University of Exeter related to mental illness.
CEDAR Administration Team:
For more information on contacting the CEDAR administration team click here or check our professional services staff profiles.
Staff Student Liaison Committee Meetings
Programme members are able to participate in the running of the programme through participation in Staff-Student Liaison Committee meetings. These will be held once per term where the programme team will meet with the trainee representatives and for some SSLC committee meetings, Lived Experience Group members to discuss general issues in programme delivery.
SSLC meetings will consider any changes made to programme delivery dependent upon previous module evaluations. The Programme Lead will report to the Director of Clinical Training or Director of Programmes within the College of Life and Environmental Sciences.
Assessment, Progression and Awarding Committees (APACs)
A Board of Examiners will meet at the end of each programme to recommend awards. The Board comprises the Programme Lead and the External Examiner(s). It is chaired by the Director of Clinical Training, in accordance with University procedures.
Results of students who have successfully completed the programme will be sent for ratification at the Vice Chancellor’s Executive Group meeting. Results of students who are unsuccessful will be considered at a Consequences of Failure Board. This Board will make recommendations for the consequences of failure for individual students. These recommendations will be approved (or otherwise) by the College Associate Dean for Education, who will submit recommendations to the Dean of Faculty for final approval.
On occasions the information contained within this programme handbook regarding programme governance and assessment may be different to that agreed at the wider college and university level. Such differences are due to the specific training and educational requirements encountered with programmes, in particular those required as part of the professional body accreditation process, the delivery of national curriculums and requirements of the SHA tender processes. Where there are differences, information contained within this programme handbook should take precedence.
It should be noted that you will not officially complete the programme until your award has been approved at this Board and approved by the Vice Chancellor’s Executive Group.
Any form of professional training is potentially stressful. We recognise that the three components of the course: university attendance, clinical practice and independent study may be difficult to balance.
Within the programme we hope to promote a mutually supportive atmosphere in which programme members feel able to share concerns and issues with one another, with the programme team and with clinical supervisors. However, we recognise that the programme team and supervisors cannot necessarily provide all the support that may be required.
Other sources of support:
- Personal Tutor: Please remember to talk with your academic personal tutor if you begin to experience difficulties. In the event of significant difficulties that may impede with your ability to study your personal academic tutor will liaise with your practice based clinical supervisor to discuss a supportive way forward.
- Well Being Services: More information can be found on the University Wellbeing Services pages.
- Reed Mews Wellbeing Centre: There is also a University Wellbeing Centre that is free and confidential and available to all programme members. Appointments are available during term time by emailing wellbeing@exeter.ac.uk and a reduced service is offered during the vacation (tel 01392 264381).
- Email counselling: A professional online counselling is available to all students during term time. Students can get in touch by following this link: e-counselling@exeter.ac.uk. More details on how the service works are then forwarded to anyone expressing an interest. This facility can be particularly helpful for students who can’t easily attend sessions in person or don’t want face-to-face counselling.
Working within IAPT or in services trying to embed IAPT principles, necessarily involves working with patients around distressing, sensitive and difficult issues and case material. As practitioners we are given the power to influence the lives of patients who may be very vulnerable. With this power comes a high degree of responsibility. It is a job that requires emotional resilience, self-awareness and self-care.
It is recognised that we all have life experiences and relationships that have shaped who we are and can all be emotionally affected by the work that we do. It is for this reason that the programmes promote reflective practice to ensure that we are mindful of the way our own experiences and assumptions about the world, people and relationships may influence our therapeutic relations and interventions.
We would like to promote an ethos which allows programme members the opportunity to reflect openly and honestly on the challenges of their role and the way in which contact with their patients and their life stories can affect us all. This means that programme members may sometimes share personal information about themselves with selected members of staff and with each other. Programme members can expect that team members and their programme member colleagues will be thoughtful and sensitive about the programme member’s right to confidentiality. As a staff team we would also have to balance this with the need to ensure that we are all protecting the interests of potential patients and ensure that programme members are able to provide appropriate clinical interventions. For this reason, we provide the following statement about confidentiality of programme members:
Programme Member Confidentiality
We aim to facilitate an open learning environment in which information is shared appropriately and respectfully between staff, programme members and relevant others to enable programme members’ development and to ensure appropriate patient care. Programme members should expect that information about day-to-day aspects of training will be shared as appropriate. This will routinely include the sharing of marks for the assessments included within the programme and an overview of progress with the programme members identified clinical lead/service manager/supervisor as identified. The programme member will have consented to having this information shared as part of the application form.
It is likely that personal matters are discussed in the course of discussions with programme teachers. This can, of course, be confidential and in these circumstances there should be a discussion about how best to handle confidentiality. Where personal matters are discussed that may impact on the programme member’s performance on the programme/ability to provide appropriate patient care, there should be a discussion about how best, and with whom, to share concerns. Programme members should expect that staff team members will need to discuss with one another how best to handle any issues. As far as possible this should be with the programme member’s informed consent. If necessary a confidentiality agreement can be drawn up between the programme members and appropriate staff/supervisors.
In extreme cases however programme members have disclosed information highlight personal risk of suicide or that indicating that they may be a wider risk to self or others. Under these circumstances and in accord with standard mental health practice the teaching team may consider it necessary to inform your service and/or your GP. You will have consented to this as part of the application form. Where risk is a concern however we would always seek to inform others with your full knowledge however.
Confidentiality – Guidelines
1. Generally:
- The details of any personal material remains confidential within the context in which it is shared, i.e. it is not fitting for any participant to disclose information about another, in their absence or presence, within the course or in conversation outside of sessions, without agreed permission.
- The only exception to this if you have concerns about the safety of children or adults. In such cases you should consult your programme lead, and when possible inform the person concerned that you are doing this and explain why.
2. When patient material is shared programme members will do so:
- in a manner most likely to protect the identity of the patients;
- in a manner which honours the limits of confidentiality, explained previously to a patient;
- with an understanding that no member of the group will disclose any information about such patients outside the sessions.
Ground Rules for Groups, Tutorials and Supervision
- Work with respect for each other even if we disagree
- Accept corporate responsibility for the climate
- Accept individual responsibility for individual behaviour
- Establish permissions for: having feelings, opinions and to learn constructively from mistakes
- Pay attention to issues of difference such as gender, age, race and culture remembering that each person’s experience is true for them and valid
- Clarify limits of confidentiality and adhere to these
- Make your own decisions about how much information you wish to share about personal or occupational matters
- Remember you are the “expert” about your own life – any questions or suggestions from others may be rejected as inappropriate
The University Campus
The campus is compact and well signposted. Find out more about the campus.
Key buildings you may wish to access include:
- The Forum (for Student Information Desk, non academic enquiries & the Library)
- Devonshire House (cafés, shops, SU bar etc)
- Reed Hall Mews (Student Health Centre).
- Northcote House houses the University’s administration (the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and Academic Secretary have their offices there, plus the Faculties Office, Registry, Accommodation and Examinations).
- The Sports Hall & open-air swimming pool adjacent to Cornwall House (open end of May to middle of September) and an indoor pool at St Luke’s College.
Find out more information about parking on campus.
Student Information Desk
The Student Information desk is based in the Forum. Opening times are detailed here. To log an enquiry, click here.
Library Facilities
The main library facilities are at the University of Exeter Streatham Campus. The library is stocked with psychology texts. The library catalogue, including access to electronic journals, and facilities for reserving and renewing books are on the web www.exeter.ac.uk/library.
Programme members are entitled to five Inter-Library Loan (ILL) tokens per year. The tokens are paid for by the College; they can be obtained from the Programme Administrator. If an increased allocation is required please speak to the Programme Director for more information.
Access to external Libraries
The SCONUL Access scheme is a UK based method to allow students access to other HE Libraries. It is a co-operative venture between most of the higher education libraries of the UK and Ireland.
It is available to:
- Academic staff on open or fixed term contracts
- Postgraduate research students registered for a PhD, MPhil or similar qualification
- Part-time, distance learning and placement students
- Full-time postgraduates
SCONUL Access also provides for a reference only service for full-time undergraduate students. These students are NOT entitled to borrow from other Libraries under the SCONUL Access scheme. More information can be found on the University Library website at www.exeter.ac.uk/library.
Study Skills Service
The Study Skills Service offers confidential help to any student who would like to improve their study skills. The Study Skills Advisors can help with the following:
- Reading effectively
- Selecting reading from book lists
- Planning and writing assignments or essays
- Taking useful notes
- Revising for exams
- Organising your time
- Generally evaluating your study skills
This service is available to postgraduates, who can and do consult the Study Skills Advisors. Help is available throughout each term and during part of each vacation.
Students with Disabilities
The University employs Disability Advisors who offer support to students with disabilities and endeavours to provide facilities and equipment suited to people’s individual needs www.exeter.ac.uk/accessability.
The Wellbeing Service
More information regarding services provided by Wellbeing can be found here.
Education Enhancement
Education Enhancement provides professional guidance and support for students and academic staff in four related areas.
e-Learning Development promotes and supports the use of technologies in learning, teaching and assessment.
Educator Development offers professional and research informed advice and guidance to academic staff on aspects of learning, teaching and assessment in Higher Education. This unit is responsible for professional development programmes including LTHE (Learning and Teaching in Higher Education).
Academic Skills Development enhances student learning through workshops, lectures, individual appointments and innovative online materials.
Protection of Dignity at Work and Study
The University of Exeter is committed to a policy of equality of opportunity and aims to provide a working and learning environment, which is free from unfair discrimination and will enable staff and students to fulfil their personal potential. All individuals should be treated with dignity and respect whether at work or study: staff and students have an important role to play in creating an environment where harassment is unacceptable.
The purpose of this policy is to assist in developing a working and learning environment and culture in which harassment is known to be unacceptable and where individuals have the confidence to deal with harassment without fear of ridicule or reprisals. The policy aims to ensure that if harassment or bullying does occur, adequate procedures are readily available to deal with the problem and prevent it reoccurring. Harassment can have a detrimental effect upon the health, confidence, morale, learning and performance of those affected by it. A list of current advisors can be found on the above link.
The policies can be found at on the HR website.
Sexual Harassment
The University defines sexual harassment as ‘attention of a sexual nature which is offensive or unwanted’. There is a leaflet available on the nature of the problem and how to deal with it. A copy is available on each of the year’s notice boards and a further copy can be obtained from Reception. If you feel that you have experienced sexual harassment then read this document and discuss the matter with any of the University’s trained advisors or with any member of Psychology. This service is confidential and further action is taken only with the knowledge and permission of the programme member.
It is worth pointing out that the University’s policy on protection from sexual harassment extends to its staff as well as programme members.
Access to Buildings
Washington Singer Laboratories and the adjacent Sir Henry Wellcome Building are home to the CEDAR programmes. Washington Singer Laboratories:
- Reception opening hours are 9am – 4.45pm term time.
- Building opening hours are 8am – 7.30pm.
If you wish to access the building out of hours please contact your Programme Administrator for advice.
Contact Details
Programme members are responsible for keeping their contact details and home address up to date. Any changes should be made via the MyExeter portal and the Student Record tab, and programme members should also make sure that their Programme Administrator is kept informed of any changes.
Information on programme administrators may be found in individual programme handbooks. Alternatively, please consult our CEDAR Professional Services profiles webpages or details on the CEDAR Support team webpages.
Communication
E-mail is generally used for day-to-day communication. The e-mail addresses for the programme team are listed at the front of programme handbooks. Programme members will all have a University of Exeter e-mail account and this will be used by the programme team and the University for any communication about the programme.
Programme members should ensure they check this account regularly; this can be done through the “iExeter” login from the University’s homepage.
A group email will be set up for programme members and can be used for sending messages, asking questions and raising issues. The Programme Administrator will notify programme staff and trainees of the group email address at the start of the course.
IT Facilities
There are numerous PCs with scanning and printing facilities available for programme members’ use within Psychology.
In addition, all the PCs in rooms 220 and 221 are available for programme members’ use in conjunction with undergraduates in Psychology. In term time these computers are subject to heavy use, although in University holidays they are underused. Software for PCs is available from the Psychology IT Department.
The University has many additional IT facilities. Please see the following link for more information:
Psychology Officers
Psychology has the following officers who can be approached to discuss relevant issues:
Women Student Advice: Lamprini Psychogiou (L.Psychogiou@exeter.ac.uk)
Mature Student Advice: Avril Mewse (A.J.Mewse@exeter.ac.uk)
Disability Liaison Officers: Gill Golding (G.A.Golding@exeter.ac.uk) and Helen Clarke (H.Clarke@exeter.ac.uk)
Bikes
The University of Exeter encourages a green transport scheme. There is a bike rack at the front of Washington Singer Laboratories.
Showers
There are showers available in both the ground floor male and female cloakrooms.
Refreshment Facilities
Coffee and snack vending machine facilities are available in the building. For more information on refreshment facilities, click here.
Guidelines for Successful Completion
Successful graduation is dependent on fulfilling a number of attendance and performance requirements which are outlined below:
Attendance
Information regarding attendance that must be achieved by trainees is avaliable in individual programme handbooks. However, please note that student absences can affect the quality of the learning experiences of the course. As such we do not expect you to take holidays when teaching has been scheduled. Should exceptional circumstances for leave arise then any requests for absence must be made in writing to the Programme Leads and agreed prior to leave being taken.
Please note, that BABCP & AFT have their own requirements for training hours that must be completed by students. Failure to meet these requirements may result in failure to meet requirements for individual accreditation.
If a programme member is ill for a prolonged period of time or other unforeseen circumstances intervene to prevent attendance then the staff team will attempt to negotiate an alternative package of teaching attendance so that the programme member can still meet the requirements. Each programme member is required to keep a log of his or her attendance at teaching sessions and completion of feedback on these sessions. They need to bring this to their termly individual tutorial where it will be reviewed by their individual tutor. For some programmes, poor attendance may result in mandatory recompletion of individual modules. More information may be found in programme handbooks.
A register to record the attendance of each programme member will be taken at the beginning of each teaching session which will reviewed by the programme lead. This register will also cover any university directed study days outside of the university. In the case you miss any of the teaching days (both within and outside of the university) through ill health it is your responsibility to inform both your employer and the programme administrator.
Timekeeping
We expect your timekeeping on the programme to be rigorous. Timekeeping will be monitored and your employer will be informed of any recurrent lapses, either at the start of the day or returning from breaks. We maintain vigilance around this aspect out of consideration for the member of staff delivering the teaching session and for fellow programme members.
Satisfactory Completion of Continuous Assessment Assignments (CAAs)
Programme members are required to submit their assessments at regular intervals throughout the course. The only grounds for exemption from this stipulation are in accordance with Psychology Mitigation guidelines which are in accordance with University procedures.
The administration team will return marked academic assessments to programme members within three weeks, provided submission has taken place by the deadline. Competency assessments will be marked and returned within four weeks due to the nature of the assessment.
You must achieve a pass mark in each of the clinical competence [Pass/Fail] and academic (50% plus at Postgraduate Taught level) assessments to pass each module.
In the event of a piece of work being graded as a fail, this will be sent to the external examiner to be reviewed. The work will be returned to programme members, together with feedback at the stipulated return date. The work must be resubmitted, along with the required documentation, within one month after being returned to programme members. Module marks will be capped at the pass mark (50%).
It should be noted that as a consequence of the commissioning arrangements for this training and, where relevant, your employer contractual arrangements concerning conditions of your employment with respect to successful course completion, failure of any assessments (in particular competency based) could result in your immediate termination from the programme. Under such circumstances you would not be able to complete the training and would not be awarded any academic credit for any modules with individual assessments failed.
Communication of Marks to Trainees’ Employers
IAPT training is a joint venture between the University and the trainees. As such, the University may provide the trainees’ employer with information regarding progress of their trainees and their marks. The trainee agrees that this will happen by signing the relevant section within the programme application form.
Termination of Employment
IAPT Training is a joint venture between the University as trainer and IAPT service providers as employers. Where a trainee terminates their employment or has their employment terminated, they will be required to withdraw from the training programme and will not be in a position to complete their training. In exceptional circumstances where a trainee has submitted and successfully completed modules at the point of change in circumstances then discretion may be permitted.
Adherence to guidelines of professional practice
Programme members are required to abide by guidelines of professional practice and Codes of Ethics of any professional body they may be a member of [e.g. BABCP Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, AFT code of conduct]. Trainees found guilty of gross professional misconduct will be subject to course failure.
Maximum Duration Permitted for Completion of IAPT Training
Extenuating circumstances, mitigations, and situations in the workplace may on occasion require a trainee to request an extension to the completion date of their assessed work. Wherever possible, we will work with your Workplace Supervisor to devise a realistic time-scale for completion of the programme. However, as this is a one year programme and the University allows interruption of studies for up to a maximum of one year it is expected that all trainees will complete within 3 years.
Please see the University TQA manual for guidelines on interruptions and withdrawal from studies.
Submitting Your Work
Formative and summative submission dates can be found in individual programme handbooks.
All written assessments should be word-processed using double-line spacing, font size of 11pt or 12 pt and in a font that is easy to read, e.g. Arial, Verdana, Tahoma. All pages should be numbered. To assist with “blind marking” please do not put your name or ID number anywhere in your submission.
Written work must stay within the specified word count and there will not be an upper percentage margin. Markers will stop marking at the point where the limit has been reached.
Details of how to submit assessments as part of your programme may be found in individual programme handbooks.
Guidance on how to use BART may be found here. Please see here for the full BART handbook. Turnitin guidance may be located here.
All work must be submitted by 1.00pm on the submission date.
It is your responsibility as a student to ensure that all work arrives by the submission deadline.
Citing and Referencing
Psychology has adopted the American Psychological Association (APA) conventions as the standard for citations and references. As such references must be completed in APA style. It is important that programme members are familiar with the precise details of citing and referencing. We use the standard of ‘a publishable article’ and we expect citations and references to adhere to that standard. The information given here is based on the latest edition of the Publication Manual of the APA. We would encourage you to consult these guidelines and copies are kept in the library, or can be obtained online at www.apastyle.org. There are many web sites providing summaries of the APA Style Guide (a Google search will identify these).
Reference Section or Bibliography
The main conventions are as follows:
Journal Articles
A typical citation would be (Ablon & Jones, 1999) and the reference would appear as:
Ablon, J. S. & Jones, E. E. (1999). Psychotherapy process in the National Institute of Mental Health treatment of depression collaborative research program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 6-7.
Another example would be:
Kasen, S., Cohen, P., Skodol, A. E., Johnson, J. G., Smailes, E., & Brook, J. S. (2001). Childhood depression and adult personality disorder - Alternative pathways of continuity. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 231-236.
Books
A typical citation would be (Bateman, Brown & Pedder, 2000) and the reference would appear as:
Bateman, A., Brown, D., & Pedder, J. (2000). An introduction to psychotherapy. (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Another example would be:
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (4th ed. Revised ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Chapters in a Book
If you have read a chapter in an edited book you would put the following citation in the text: (Aveline, 2006). In the reference section you would list it as:
Aveline, M., Strauss, B., & Stiles, W. B. (2005). Psychotherapy research. In G. Gabbard, J. S. Beck, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychotherapy (pp. 449-462). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Citations in the Main Text
Citing in text means referring to author(s) with the dates (e.g., Eells, 1997) so that the reader can then go to the References and find them in more detail.
Eells, T. D. (1997). Handbook of psychotherapy case formulation. New York: Guilford Press.
Reference citations for two or more works within the same parentheses. List two or more works by different authors who are cited within the same parentheses in alphabetical order by the first author’s surname. Separate the citations with semicolons. For example: Several studies (Balda, 1980; Kamil, 1988; Pepperberg & Funk, 1990). Exception: You may separate a major citation from other citations within parentheses by inserting a phrase such as see also, before the first of the remaining citations, which should be in alphabetical order. For example: (Minor, 2001; see also Adams, 1999; Storandt, 1997).
There are many different instances of citing and referencing (e.g., Internet resources, personal communication, conference papers, case examples, and you are advised to consult the Publication Manual for these.
The University has procedures in place for the regular review of its educational provision, including the annual review of modules and programmes which draw on feedback from such sources as external examiners’ reports, student evaluation (see overleaf), student achievement and progression data. In addition, subject areas are reviewed every three years through a subject and programme quality review scheme that includes external input. These procedures are recorded in codes of practice contained in the TQA Manual. These programmes are also subject to accreditation by their relevant professional body with an annual monitoring process. Additionally, nearly all subject areas are reviewed from time to time by the national Quality Assurance Agency for HE; see the QAA web site for review reports on subjects at Exeter.
Mechanisms
- Programme Meeting
- Board of Examiners
- Clinical Education Development and Research Management/Strategy Group
- College of Life and Environmental Studies Education Strategy Group
- Board of the Faculty of Taught Programmes (Taught Faculty)
University
The following ongoing processes form part of the programme’s quality assurance:
- SPQR - the University’s tri-annual teaching quality review scheme
- External examiners’ reports > Vice Chancellor > Dean of College
Mechanisms for gaining programme member feedback on quality of teaching, practice placements and their learning experience can include:
- Termly meetings of programme member representatives giving feedback to programme leads within the Staff-Student Liaison Committee
- Programme member feedback on teaching (questionnaires) at the end of each module
- Programme member feedback on clinical supervision where relevant (supervision reports)
- SPQR - the University’s tri-annual teaching quality review scheme
- TDU/PCAP course for new substantive staff
- Staff appraisal
- Peer teaching observation
- QAA Subject Review
- College Meetings termly
Committees with responsibility for monitoring and evaluating quality and standards:
- Board of the Faculty of Taught Programmes (Taught Faculty)
- Board of Examiners
Programme members are required to complete:
- Teaching Feedback
- Module Feedback
- Programme Feedback
Marking, Assessment and Progression
This document summarises the Marking Conventions for the IAPT programmes and is based on the University Teaching Quality Assessment Manual.
Marking and Examining Procedure
Work submitted for assessment for modules or individual components of taught modules will normally be marked by a single examiner and moderated by another member of staff. The marks awarded at that stage are provisional only. The External Examiner in due course reviews a sample of the assessed work and the provisional marks assigned to benchmark the assessment process, and may recommend adjustments. Any academic work marked as <40% (undergraduate degree) or <50% (postgraduate) and all clinical work that is failed will be second marked and reviewed by an external examiner.
Provisional marks are considered at the Examination Board which will meet at the end of the programme to consider final awards. Results of students who have successfully completed the programme will be sent for ratification at the Vice Chancellor’s Executive Group meeting. Results of students who are unsuccessful will be considered at a Consequences of Failure Board. This Board will make recommendations for the consequences of failure for individual students. These recommendations will be approved (or otherwise) by the College Associate Dean for Education, who will submit recommendations to the Dean of Faculty for final approval.
Notched Marking Guidelines
With effect from the 2016/7 academic session, the CLES Education Strategy Group has agreed to implement a notched marking scheme to support consistency and reliability within the assessment process. Within the marking scheme only certain marks may be used within each grade.
The marks available for award are described in the marking criteria document which is available to download here: CLES Generic Notched Marking Guidelines
Nomenclature
The following definitions are adopted for the purposes of this document:
Assessment: any work undertaken by a programme member that counts towards their degree or progression, including both examinations and coursework.
Level: A level is an indicator of the relative demand, complexity and depth of learning and of the relative autonomy and responsibility of the learner, associated with a module of a programme.
Deferral: A deferral means an assessment taken at a later occasion because either a programme member has been prevented from taking an assessment, or where an assessment was attempted, but the programme member is permitted to have another attempt. Deferral decisions are made where the Board of Examiners decides there are adequate grounds, such as medical reasons or exceptional personal circumstances. Where the assessment in question was a first attempt, the deferral will also be treated as a first attempt (i.e. marks are not capped). If the assessment in question was already a referred assessment, then the deferral will mean that the assessment taken at a later occasion is also treated as a referral.
Referral: A further attempt on the next normal occasion, following initial failure, at an individual assessment without the requirement to repeat any attendance. Programme members may be referred in an individual assessment on one occasion only, and have a right to be so referred only following initial failure.
Repeat Study: A College has the option, following the failure of a candidate in all or part of a programme, of requiring a candidate to repeat a module or the whole programme.
Compensation and Condonement: In certain circumstances, a Board may decide to award credit for a particular module even though the pass-mark has not been reached.
Mitigation: The process by which a Board of Examiners may exercise its discretion, in appropriate and fully documented circumstances, such as medical reasons or exceptional personal circumstances, for example to:
- grant a deferral for a module assessment attempted
- raise a mark for a module or for an individual assessment component
- disregard a mark for classification purposes (i.e. in the calculation of a credit-weighted mean mark)
- leave module marks unchanged, but take account of mitigating circumstances in the determination of the award classification.
The minutes of the Board of Examiners must clearly identify all such cases and provide a brief justification for the decision. Marks which have been modified through the consideration of mitigating circumstances are recorded in their modified form on programme member transcripts, and no reference is made to mitigation, in order to protect the privacy of the candidate.
The following marking scheme and criteria are adopted as a framework:
| Range | Award | Marking Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| 70% - 100% | Distinction | Work of exceptional standard reflecting outstanding competence / knowledge of material and critical ability. |
| 60 - 69% | Merit | Work with a well-defined focus, reflecting a good working competence / knowledge of material and good level of competence in its critical assessment. |
| 50 - 59% | Pass | Work demonstrating adequate competence / working knowledge of material and evidence of some analysis. |
| 40 - 49% | Condonable fail | limited competence / knowledge of core material and limited critical ability. |
| 0 - 39% | Fail | Lacking in basic competence / knowledge and critical ability. |
To ensure consistency in the University, including in the preparation of transcripts, marking is numerical. Marks returned by the Board for both assessment components and the overall module mark should be integers.
The marking criteria used to assess Masters level academic work is detailed overleaf. This should be used to give programme members some indication as to the grading criteria used when essay the academic components of the programme.
Generic Criteria for Assessment for Masters Programmes
| Marks | 0-39 (Fail) |
40-49 (Condonable Fail) |
50-59 (Pass) |
60-69 (Merit) |
70-85 (Distinction) |
86-100 (Distinction) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assessment categories | ||||||
| Knowledge & understanding of subject | ~ demonstrates little knowledge or understanding of the field ~ demonstrates significant weaknesses in the knowledge base, and/or simply reproduces knowledge without evidence of understanding |
~ demonstrates knowledge of the field and awareness of current evidence and issues, but with some notable weaknesses ~ lacks knowledge and understanding of some key areas |
~ demonstrates a sound knowledge and understanding of material within a specialised field of study ~ demonstrates an understanding of current theoretical and methodological approaches and how these affect the way the knowledge base is interpreted |
~ produces work with a well-defined focus ~ demonstrates a systematic knowledge, understanding and critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of the academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice |
~produces work of exceptional standard, reflecting outstanding knowledge and understanding of material ~ displays exceptional mastery of a complex and specialised area of knowledge and skills, with an exceptional critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights at the forefront of the field |
~ This work meets and often exceeds the standard for distinction, as described in the 70-85 band, across all sub-categories of criteria: knowledge and understanding of subject; cognitive skills; research skills; use of research-informed literature; and skills for life and professional employment. ~ This work is of publishable quality, with only very minor amendments, and would be likely to receive that judgement if submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. ~ Work is of such a quality that the student is clearly highly capable of doctoral research in the discipline and, in principle, should be prioritised for a postgraduate research grant. ~ This work meets and often exceeds the standard for distinction, as described in the 70-85 band, across all sub-categories of criteria: knowledge and understanding of subject; cognitive skills; research skills; use of research-informed literature; and skills for life and professional employment. ~ This work is of publishable quality, with only very minor amendments, and would be likely to receive that judgement if submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. ~ Work is of such a quality that the student is clearly highly capable of doctoral research in the discipline and, in principle, should be prioritised for a postgraduate research grant. |
| Cognitive/ intellectual skills |
~ very little or no critical ability ~ poor, inconsistent analysis |
~ some appropriate analysis, but some significant inconsistencies which affect the soundness of argument and/or conclusions ~ demonstrates very limited critical ability |
~ provides evidence of relevant and sound analysis within the specialised area, with some ability to evaluate critically ~ is able to analyse complex issues and make appropriate judgements |
~ is able to evaluate methodologies critically and, where appropriate, to propose new hypotheses ~ is able to deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, making sound judgements in the absence of complete data |
~ shows outstanding ability to evaluate methodologies critically and, where appropriate, to propose new hypotheses ~ is able to deal with a range of complex issues both systematically and creatively, making excellent judgements in the absence of complete data |
|
| Research skills Use of research-informed literature | ~ demonstrates little or no skill in selected techniques applicable to own research or advanced scholarship ~ lacks any understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge ~ failure to evidence or discuss/apply appropriate examples of literature relating to current research and advanced scholarship in the field ~ references to literature/ evidence and use of academic conventions are flawed, and/or inconsistent ~ argument absent, or lacking any clarity and/or logic |
~ demonstrates some skill in selected techniques applicable to own research or advanced scholarship, but with significant areas of weakness ~ lacks sufficient understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge ~ can evidence and discuss/apply examples of literature relating to current research but lacks critical engagement ~ references to appropriate literature/ evidence and use of academic conventions are insufficient and/or inconsistent ~ argument is attempted, but lacks in clarity and/or logic |
~ demonstrates understanding of and skills in selected techniques applicable to own research or advanced scholarship ~ shows some originality in the application of knowledge, and some understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline ~ can evaluate critically examples of literature relating to current research and advanced scholarship in the field ~ makes consistently sound use of appropriate academic conventions and academic honesty ~ able to communicate argument, evidence and conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences |
~ displays a comprehensive understanding of and skills in techniques applicable to own research or advanced scholarship ~ shows originality in the application of knowledge, together with a good understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline ~ is able to evaluate critically a range of literature relating to current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline ~ makes consistently good use of appropriate academic conventions and academic honesty ~ able to communicate very effectively arguments, evidence and conclusions to specialist and non-specialist audiences |
~ employs advanced skills to conduct research and, where appropriate, advanced technical or professional activity, accepting accountability for related decision making ~ displays an exceptional grasp of techniques applicable to own research or advanced scholarship ~ shows originality in application of knowledge, and excellent understanding of how established techniques of enquiry create and interpret knowledge in the discipline ~ is able to evaluate critically, with exceptional insight, a range of literature relating to current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline ~ makes consistently excellent use of appropriate academic conventions and academic honesty ~ able to communicate at a very high level arguments, evidence and conclusions to specialist and non-specialist audiences |
|
| Skills for life and professional employment |
~ significant weaknesses evident in key areas such as communication , problem-solving and project management ~ inability to adapt ~inability to work flexibly, independently and/or as part of a team |
~ demonstrates generally effective employability skills, including communication and problem-solving, but with some problematic areas of weakness ~ limited ability to adapt ~ ability to work flexibly, independently and/or as part of a team, but with areas of weakness |
~ shows a consistently good level of employability skills, including team working, project management, IT/computer literacy, creativity and flexibility ~ demonstrates capabilities to support effective communication in a range of complex and specialised contexts ~ shows consistent ability in tackling and solving demanding problems ~ can plan and direct own learning ~ demonstrates ability to advance own knowledge and understanding, and to develop new skills ~ demonstrates the independent learning ability required for continuing professional development |
~ shows a high level of employability skills, including team working, project management, IT/computer literacy, creativity and flexibility ~ demonstrates very effective communication in a range of complex and specialised contexts ~ demonstrates self-direction and some originality in tackling and solving demanding problems ~ can act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level ~ demonstrates the skills and attitudes needed to advance own knowledge and understanding, and to develop new skills ~ demonstrates the independent learning ability required for continuing professional development |
~ shows a very high level of employability skills, including team working/leadership, project management, IT/computer literacy, creativity and flexibility ~ demonstrates very high level communication skills in a range of complex contexts, and ability to write at publishable standard ~ demonstrates autonomy and notable originality in tackling and solving demanding problems ~ shows a high level of consistency and autonomy in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level ~ demonstrates the skills and attitudes needed to advance own knowledge and understanding, and to develop new skills to a high level ~ demonstrates the independent learning ability required for continuing professional development |
|
| Marks for M level | 0-39 (Fail) |
40-49 (Condonable fail) |
50-59 (Pass) |
60-69 (Merit) |
70-85 (Distinction) |
86-100 (Distinction) |
PGDip
- A Postgraduate Diploma is awarded when a programme member gains all 120 credits of the programme.
- A postgraduate diploma with Distinction is awarded when a programme member gains a credit-weighted mean of at least 70% overall.
- A Postgraduate Diploma with Merit is awarded when a programme member gains a credit-weighted mean of at least 60% overall.
PG Cert
- A Postgraduate Certificate is awarded when a programme member gains all 60 credits of the PG Cert level programme.
- A Postgraduate Certificate with Distinction is awarded when a programme member gains a credit-weighted mean of at least 70% overall.
- A Postgraduate Certificate with Merit is awarded when a programme member gains a credit-weighted mean of at least 60% overall.
Degree Level
- 60 undergraduate degree level credits are awarded upon successful completion of the programme.
- These may be used as part of an APL/APEL process offered within University institutions to contribute, often with further study or other academic credit, towards the award of a degree.
Other Award Matters
In calculating an overall module mark or the credit-weighted mean mark for the programme as a whole, a calculation resulting in a decimal of 0.5 or above should be rounded up. It would not be appropriate for any lesser award to be made while a candidate still has a right to referral in the failed modules, and where the outcome of the referral may allow the candidate to achieve the higher award.
It should be noted that as a consequence of the commissioning arrangements for this training, and where relevant your employer contractual arrangements concerning conditions of your employment with respect to successful course completion, failure of any assessments (in particular competency based) could result in your immediate termination from the programme. Under such circumstances you would not be able to complete the training and would not be awarded any academic credit for any modules with individual assessments failed.
If, at any time, trainees have concerns about their progress through the programme, they should discuss this with the programme lead and/or the appropriate member of staff. An appropriate action plan can then be set up to anticipate and avoid problems.
Award of Credit
PGDip
The overall module mark of 50% is the threshold standard for the award of credit to obtain the PG Dip High Intensity Psychological Therapy/Evidence Based Practice. The above procedures carry the presumption that any programme member who fails assessment within a module will normally be required to pass a referral in it to acquire sufficient credits for progression or an award. Where the condonement process can be applied to a module mark in the range 40-49%, the mark is notionally raised to 50% for the purpose of awarding credit (though the actual recorded mark is unchanged). Marks below 40% constitute failure, as does any mark between 40% and 49% that cannot be condoned.
PG Cert
The overall module mark of 50% is the threshold standard for the award of credit to obtain the PG Cert Low Intensity Psychological Therapy. The above procedures carry the presumption that any programme member who fails assessment within a module will normally be required to pass a referral in it to acquire sufficient credits for progression or an award. Where the condonement process can be applied to a module mark in the range 40-49%, the mark is notionally raised to 50% for the purpose of awarding credit (though the actual recorded mark is unchanged). Marks below 40% constitute failure, as does any mark between 40% and 49% that cannot be condoned. It should be noted that a condonement process can only be applied to the marking of academic work, and cannot be applied to any work specified as PASS/FAIL (in most cases competency based assessments).
Degree Level
The overall module mark of 40% is the threshold standard for the award of Degree level credit. All other detail is as specified above.
For further information concerning credit at all levels, reference should be made to the University’s Levels and Awards Framework, contained in the TQA Manual.
Referral: A referral is a further attempt permitted by the examiners, following initial failure of an individual module, at the assessment(s) or examination(s) for that module. There is no requirement to repeat attendance. The module mark following a referral is capped at the pass mark of 50% (postgraduate). For any assessment, candidates have a right to be referred on one occasion only. Where the Board of Examiners decides there are adequate grounds, such as medical reasons or exceptional personal circumstances, it may allow a deferral (i.e., re-assessment without the mark being capped), or permit a further referral.
In the event of any piece of work being referred it will be returned to the programme member with instructions from the programme administrator. More details can be located in individual programme handbooks.
Provisional marks are considered at the Examination Board which will meet at the end of the programme to consider final awards. Results of students who have successfully completed the programme will be sent for ratification at the Vice Chancellor’s Executive Group meeting. Results of students who are unsuccessful will be considered at a Consequences of Failure Board. This Board will make recommendations for the consequences of failure for individual students. These recommendations will be approved (or otherwise) by the College Associate Dean for Education, who will submit recommendations to the Dean of Faculty for final approval.
Where a Board of Examiners requires a referral or deferral, these decisions should be communicated to the Examinations Office using the Pass/Fail lists issued by that Office, and signed by the Chair of the Board of Examiners and the External Examiner(s). In relation to the referred / deferred examination period, it is essential that Boards return the Pass/Fail lists by the deadline specified by the Examinations Office. It is not the responsibility of the Board of Examiners to make recommendations about the consequences of failure; this is the responsibility of the Dean of the College who shall, after due consultation within the College, submit recommendations to the Faculty Board.
Module marks (including dissertation modules) should be entered into the student record system directly (for those disciplines appropriate), or submitted to the Examinations Office in a grid which clearly records:
- candidate name and student number;
- the module name and code;
- the numerical mark, or non-submission, or absence;
- whether a mark has been condoned;
- whether mitigating circumstances were considered;
- whether a candidate is being referred in the assessment concerned.
- Separate report forms on dissertations do not need to be returned.
Marking and Appeals Procedure
If a student feels that there has been irregularity in the marking of an assignment and wishes to appeal against a provisional mark prior to the Examination Board, they should bring the grounds for their appeal in writing promptly to the attention of the Director of Clinical Training, who may then seek the opinion of an additional marker. The External Examiner would then review both marks and the correspondence. This will usually resolve the matter, but if a student still feels that he or she has grounds for a formal appeal, the university’s procedures for doing this can be found in the TQA manual.
Student Complaints Procedure
Information about the University Student Complaint Procedure can be found here.
If, at any time a student has concerns about their progress through the programme, they should discuss this with the Programme Director. An appropriate action plan can then be set up to anticipate and avoid problems.
Academic Progress
A programme member’s academic performance is monitored by their individual tutor and/or academic team. If there are concerns about a programme member’s academic progress the individual tutor and/or academic team will initially discuss these with the programme member. The academic lead needs to be kept informed of any concerns and may arrange to discuss these with the programme member.
If at any time there is serious concern about the progress or performance of a student in any aspect of the programme, the Programme Director will formally issue guidance informing the programme member about which areas of work are giving rise to that concern, what needs to be done to achieve satisfactory progress and the date by which satisfactory progress is expected. In the absence of remedy, or improvement, the Programme Director will report the problem to the Director of Clinical Training or director of CYP IAPTwho will report to the Dean of the College. If the Dean is satisfied that action is appropriate, he/she will issue final guidance indicating that unless there is satisfactory improvement the programme member’s continued University registration may be terminated.
Appeal procedures
If a programme member feels that there has been irregularity in the marking of an assessment and wishes to appeal against a provisional mark before the Board of Examiners, they should bring the grounds for their appeal in writing promptly to the attention of the Director of Clinical Training or theDirector of CYP IAPT Programmeswho may then seek the opinion of an additional marker. The External Examiner would then review both marks and the correspondence. This will usually resolve the matter, but if a student still feels that he or she has grounds for a formal appeal, the university’s procedures for doing this can be found here.
These University procedures would also apply in the case of a programme failure.
Complaints Procedure
The University has a formal complaints procedure. In the event of a complaint, this procedure should be followed.
Academic Probity
The definition of cheating and plagiarism in this document are taken from the University’s Teaching Quality Assurance (TQA).
Definitions and offences are outlined in the TQA here. Information on poor academic practice and academic misconduct is also outlined in detail here.
Please note that any words over the word count will not be marked.
The following content is NOT included in a final word count:
- Abstract
- Title
- Contents page
- Reference list
- Bibliography
- Footnotes (these should be used for references only; those containing large amounts of text will be treated as if they were part of the main body of text). Footnotes should only be used where directed by the module convenor.
- Appendices
- Words used in tables, graphs and other forms of data presentation (including titles of figures)
- Equations
The following content IS included in a final word count:
- Main body of text
- In text quotations
- In text references
- Section headings
- Footnotes containing large amounts of text (unless indicated otherwise by module convenor)
Mitigation Procedure 2019
Application for mitigation of assessment should be made prior to the assessment deadline in question. Students are responsible for making applications for mitigation for the affected module/element of assessment. This must be submitted through SharePoint within one working day of the assessment:http://www.exeter.ac.uk/wellbeing/studentwelfare/mitigationprocess/
Students may apply for mitigation for more than one module where the same circumstances have affected more than one assessment. However, students must use the correct mitigation form and be explicit in detailing: the circumstances that have affected them, how these circumstances have affected their performance and evidence to support their application (doctor's note etc.), together with written corroboration/support from their workplace supervisor.
Please be clear on your form which assessment you are applying for mitigation for by providing the module code (e.g. PYCM037) and the title of your assessment (e.g. Extended Case Report).
Where we do not receive correctly completed mitigation forms and supporting evidence, the assessment will be marked as late until the correct documentation is provided by the student.
Late applications for mitigation (made after the original assessment deadline) should only be considered in exceptional circumstances, where there are compelling reasons why the application was not made at the time. Examples may include an emerging condition, the effect of which was not clear at the time of the examination/during completion of the assignment, or a condition such as severe clinical depression which affects a student’s ability to understand or engage with the procedures.
Minor ailments, including coughs and colds, and short-term difficulties including those involving transport, computer problems (always make a backup of your work); personal or family celebrations, etc. will not be acceptable as grounds for appeal.
Acceptable grounds for an extension will include serious illness, serious personal problems, and deaths of close family or friends. Appeals should be supported by the relevant documentation, including medical notes, where possible and appropriate.
As a general rule the committee will not accept appeals where the problems could have been resolved and late submission avoided if the programme member had planned ahead by a few days.
Mitigation – Penalties: Late Course Work
The University has issued regulations concerning the mark penalty to be applied to late continuous assessment work. These regulations apply to all undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes throughout the University.
All programme members are strongly advised to read the full details given in the official University document.
In summary, continuous assessment work submitted between one day and two weeks late, inclusive, will receive the actual mark up to a maximum of the pass mark for the module. Work submitted more than two weeks late will receive a mark of zero. In other words, if the work is between one day and two weeks late, and it passes, then the mark received is the lowest possible pass level (i.e. 50% at postgraduate).
If the work fails and is less than two weeks late then it receives the ‘actual’ failing mark. If the work is more than two weeks late then the mark is failed. When an assignment involves elements of assessment submitted at different times, penalties will apply to those elements submitted late, not the whole module or component. The final decision about work falling into this category will be made by the Board of Examiners for the course.
If the student receives a failing mark for the referred assessment or fails to submit work prior to, or by the agreed deadline, this will mean that the student fails the programme.
Programme Directors are not able to grant extensions to deadlines for postgraduate continuous assessment work. In accordance with the University procedures mitigation of the penalty for late submission is the sole prerogative of the College Mitigation Committee.
Where a programme member considers that they have grounds for an extension to the deadline for a piece of work, and wishes to appeal for mitigation of the mark penalty for late submission, then they must submit their appeal in writing to the Chair of the Committee. Normally, all appeals must be submitted within fourteen days after the deadline. The appeal must give details identifying the piece of work, and details of the proposed grounds for appeal: normally this information should be given on one side of A4 (maximum). The appeal will be considered at the next meeting of the committee and the programme member will be informed in writing of the decision of the committee. It is expected that the committee will meet not more than three times per session. Please note that under this procedure it will not be possible to grant extensions in advance of a deadline. In cases where a committee meeting is not within an appropriate time frame for enabling decisions to be made regarding the management of programme requirements, then, under these exceptional circumstances, between meetings submissions can be made to the Chair of the committee. The Chair will liaise with relevant Programme Directors to facilitate a “between meetings” response.
All programme members are strongly advised to plan ahead and aim to submit continuous assessment work a few days in advance of each deadline so that any problems arising close to the deadline can be resolved.
Penalties for late submission will be applied at the time that the marks are collated at the end of the session and before the examiners meetings. The External Examiners and other members of the Board of Examiners will be informed of all cases where a late penalty has been applied.
In order to protect programme member’s anonymity and confidentiality and to achieve consistency of treatment, the College has set up a Mitigation Committee. The purpose of this Committee is to consider any medical or other mitigating evidence presented by programme members in relation to assessment and to consider applications for deferral of module(s), and to make appropriate recommendations to the relevant Board of Examiners as to how the mitigating circumstances may have affected a programme member’s performance. Minutes of the meetings will be available to the Boards of Examiners but the Board will not receive any details regarding a programme member’s individual circumstances.
The College has devised a coding structure to ensure that the full nature of the circumstances affecting a programme member’s performance remain confidential to the Board of Examiners but also allow for the full impact of those circumstances to be considered.
Codes will have a specific order:
[Onset] [Severity] [Classification] [Level affected] [Compensation]
Definitions:
[Onset]
- Og - Chronic
- Sp - Acute
- D - Disability, registered with the University
- DC - Disability, registered with the University, which has already received some compensation, e.g., additional time in exams etc.
[Severity]
- S - Significant - May have had a significant effect on performance
- N - Not significant - Unlikely to have had a significant effect on performance
- E - Extreme - Something particularly unpleasant that very few people experience.
- If in doubt, list as significant. “not significant” means exam board is likely to dismiss it
[Classification]
- M - Medical - including psychological problems diagnosed by a professional
- P - Personal - Personal problems; Medical problems of friends and relations
[Level affected]
- 1a - Performance in Level 1, Semester 1 would have been affected
- 1b - Level 1, semester 2
- 1x - Level 1, both semesters
- 2a - Performance in Level 2, Semester 1 would have been affected
- 2b - Level 2, semester 2
- 2x - Level 2, both semesters
- 3 - Level 3
- 6 – M Level/PhD (both semesters)
[Compensation]
- C - Compensated - This problem has already been 100% compensated for by other procedures (e.g. mark penalty on CA work lifted).
- N - Not compensated - There are aspects of this problem that could have affected performance in ways that have not been entirely compensated by other procedures.
- NA - Not applicable
- + - a plus sign indicates that a programme member has had more than one event in the academic year which has compounded the possible effects on their academic performance
Where a programme member considers that they have grounds to appeal for mitigation of the mark penalty for late submission, then they must submit their appeal in writing to the Programme Administrator. This should be done on the University Application for Consideration of Mitigation form. Normally, all appeals must be submitted within fourteen days after the deadline date and should be made once the work has been submitted. The application will be considered at the next meeting of the Mitigation Committee (the Committee usually meet in January, May and again in late June just before the Board of Examiners meeting). The Committee will arrange to complete the reverse of your form with their decision and a ‘code’ will be forwarded to the Board of Examiners to ensure that they are aware of how the circumstances may have affected your academic performance. Please note that under this procedure it will not be possible to grant extensions in advance of a deadline.
In cases where a committee meeting is not within an appropriate time frame for enabling decisions to be made regarding the management of programme requirements, then, under these exceptional circumstances, between meetings submissions can be made to the Chair of the committee. The Chair will liaise with relevant Programme Directors to facilitate a “between meetings” response.
Recommendations by the Mitigation Committee to a Board of Examiners may also include, but are not restricted to, the following examples:
- removing module or individual assessment results from the classification calculation;
- considering the effect that raising marks in affected modules might have on a programme member’s classification;
- exercising discretion at classification.
The recommendations made by the Committee to the Board of Examiners will not be available to the programme member concerned. The above examples should be considered in light of the College’s assessment procedures.Mitigating circumstances can only be taken into account if there is a clear indication that programme members may have been prevented from performing as well as they could have been expected to. In many cases, programme members should take action during their studies if they are adversely affected by circumstances (for example, seek appropriate support from the programme team, study skills advisers or AccessAbility.)
