Roehampton Academic Policies 2013

Official Academic Policies

1 Last updated on: 17 February 2015 September 2014

University of Roehampton Online Academic Policies

Policies Modification .............................................................................................................................................. 4

Extensions and Late Submissions ........................................................................................................................... 5

Extensions to Assessment Deadlines ................................................................................................................. 5

Late Submission of Work .................................................................................................................................... 5

Mitigating Circumstances ................................................................................................................................... 6

Guidelines for Re-Sitting Modules ......................................................................................................................... 7

Context ............................................................................................................................................................... 7

Conditions .......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Component Grades ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Module Order ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Impact on Grading .............................................................................................................................................. 9

Condonation....................................................................................................................................................... 9

Mitigating Circumstances ................................................................................................................................. 10

Mitigating Circumstances Policy and Procedure .................................................................................................. 11

Mitigating Circumstances Summary ................................................................................................................. 11

Definitions ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

Submission of Requests ................................................................................................................................... 12

Supporting Documentation .............................................................................................................................. 12

Consideration of Mitigating Circumstances ..................................................................................................... 13

Decisions on Mitigating Circumstances ............................................................................................................ 13

Assessments and Awards ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Eligibility for an Award ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Master’s Degrees ............................................................................................................................................. 14

Postgraduate Diplomas .................................................................................................................................... 14

Assessment Guidance ...................................................................................................................................... 16

Assessment Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 16

Module Assessment Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 17

Criteria for Module Assessments ................................................................................................................. 17

Criteria for Shared Activities ........................................................................................................................ 18

Management Research Project Assessment Process ....................................................................................... 20



Assessment ..................................................................................................................................................... 20

Grades .............................................................................................................................................................. 20

Defined grade bands: ................................................................................................................................. 20

Re-sitting the Management Research Project (MRP) ...................................................................................... 20

Re-using own work in the MRP ......................................................................................................................... 21

Late submissions of the MRP ............................................................................................................................. 21

Extensions to the MRP deadline due to Mitigating Circumstances ................................................................ 21

Management Research Project Mitigating Circumstances Policy and Procedure ......................................... 22

Mitigating Circumstances Summary ............................................................................................................. 22

Definitions ................................................................................................................................................... 22

Submission of Requests ............................................................................................................................. 23

Supporting Documentation ....................................................................................................................... 23

Consideration of Mitigating Circumstances ............................................................................................. 24

Decisions on Mitigating Circumstances .................................................................................................... 24

Academic Integrity ............................................................................................................................................... 25

Expectations of You as a Student ..................................................................................................................... 25

Academic Honesty Declaration ........................................................................................................................ 25

Standards for Academic Practice ..................................................................................................................... 25

Supporting Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 26

Requirements ................................................................................................................................................... 26

Poor Academic Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Definition of Poor Academic Quality ............................................................................................................ 27

Assessment of Poor Academic Quality ......................................................................................................... 27

Penalties for Poor Academic Quality ............................................................................................................ 27

Academic Misconduct ...................................................................................................................................... 28

Definitions of Academic Misconduct ........................................................................................................... 28

Penalties for Academic Misconduct ............................................................................................................. 29

Use of Essay Mills and Essay Banks .................................................................................................................. 29

Investigations After Work is Graded ................................................................................................................ 29

Procedure for Student Complaints ...................................................................................................................... 30

Definition of Complaints .................................................................................................................................. 30

Stages of Complaints ........................................................................................................................................ 31

Stage One: Review the University of Roehampton London’s Student Contract ......................................... 31

Stage Two: Make an Informal Complaint ..................................................................................................... 31

Stage Three: Submit a Formal Written Complaint to Laureate Online Education ....................................... 31



Stage Four: Escalate the Complaint Within Laureate Online Education ...................................................... 32

Stage Five: Escalate the Complaint to the University of Roehampton London ........................................... 33

Progression .......................................................................................................................................................... 34

Doubling up modules ....................................................................................................................................... 34

Student Representatives ...................................................................................................................................... 35

Responsibilities of Student Representatives .................................................................................................... 36

Eligibility to become a Student Representative ............................................................................................... 36

Election of Student Representatives ................................................................................................................ 37

Full Policies of the University of Roehampton ..................................................................................................... 38

Academic Regulations ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Mitigating Circumstances Policy Document ..................................................................................................... 38

Disciplinary Regulations ................................................................................................................................... 38

Official Student Forms ......................................................................................................................................... 39

DOUBLING UP MODULES REQUEST FORM ...................................................................................................... 39

Student Representative Application Form ....................................................................................................... 41

SUBMISSION DEADLINE EXTENSION REQUEST FORM ..................................................................................... 43



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.

http://roehampton-online.com/



Extensions and Late Submissions

Extensions to Assessment Deadlines

In general, our policy is that your work must be submitted within the prescribed time- period and that any work not submitted by this deadline will not be credited toward the grade for the module. We accept that there may be some exceptions to this, due to illness or unexpected events that affect your ability to submit your work on time. In order to maintain equity of treatment across classes and faculty members, it is essential that the exceptions to this policy are carefully defined. You may apply to your faculty member for an extension of up to one week from the original deadline for the final assessment of your module. Extensions to deadlines for assignments may be granted if the following conditions are met:

1. You must complete the Deadline Extension Request Form and submit it to your faculty member in advance of the submission deadline.

2. The exceptional circumstances that led to your request must be proved unexpected or unpreventable.

3. In the request, you must provide clear and sufficient evidence of the exceptional circumstances that have led to your request.

In granting an extension your faculty member will specify in advance a firm final deadline for the

submission of the assessment in question.

Deadline extension requests are normally declined if no supporting evidence is received. There is no

guarantee that a request for an extension will be granted by your faculty member, therefore, you

must make such a request in sufficient time to allow you to complete the final assessment by the

original deadline should your request be denied.

Late Submission of Work

Failure for any reason to submit work at the appropriate time, without prior approval from your faculty member, will result in a grading penalty for that module work. There will be a penalty on work which is submitted after the deadline, or after the revised deadline if you have been granted an extension under the above provisions. These penalties are as follows:

1. Where you submit work up until 14:00hrs (your local time zone), seven calendar

days after the deadline, the percentage mark will be capped at 50%.

2. Where you submit work after 14:00hrs (your local time zone), seven calendar days after the deadline, the percentage mark will be set to zero.



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:

explain your absence from class, explain your failure to submit work, or to submit work on time, explain cases where your academic performance falls below expectations.

Please refer to the Mitigating Circumstances Policy and Procedure section within this document for further information.



Guidelines for Re-Sitting Modules

Please note, these guidelines apply to all modules that began after 2012. For any modules that began in 2012, you should refer to the relevant guidelines detailed on the website.

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.

http://www.roehampton-online.com/policies



The table below provides a quick summary of the conditions for re-sitting failed modules:

Final Module Grade Shared Activity Grade

Option

≥40% and <50% 50% or more Re-Submit Final Project

≥40% and <50% Less than 50% Re-take Module

Less than 40% -- 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 re- use any part of previously submitted work you must always cite and reference your previous work.



Timelines

If you fail a module, you will be required to re-sit the failed module at the earliest opportunity. In the case where you need to only resubmit the final assignment, this will normally be two weeks following notification of the provisional Fail grade. You must resubmit the final assignment through Turnitin in the original class, and you will receive feedback on the submission in the same class.

Module Order

In the case where you must re-take the entire module, this should normally be at the next term start. You will be permitted to enroll into your next module before you re- take the entire module. However, you will not be permitted to enroll into any further modules until the failed module has been passed. For example, if you fail Module 2 you will be able to enroll into and sit Module 3, but must re-sit and pass Module 2 before sitting Module 4.

Note that if you are a non-traditional entrant, you cannot enroll to module two before you pass the intake module.

Impact on Grading

The mark awarded for a re-sit will be capped at the pass mark of 50%, in line with the University’s 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 Master’s. 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.

http://www.roehampton.ac.uk/uploadedFiles/Pages_Assets/PDFs_and_Word_Docs/Corporate_Information/Taught-Degree-Regulations.pdf



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:

explain your absence from class, explain your failure to submit work, or to submit work on time, explain cases where your academic performance falls below expectations.

Please refer to the Mitigating Circumstances Policy and Procedure section of this document for further information.



Mitigating Circumstances Policy and Procedure

Mitigating Circumstances Summary

You may sometimes perform more poorly in assessments than your previous performance or achievements would have predicted. Sometimes this poor performance can be attributed, or partially attributed, to particular circumstances beyond your control. These circumstances are described as ‘mitigating circumstances’.

Mitigating circumstances may, for example, include:

illness affecting you serious illness affecting a close family member bereavement other unforeseeable or unpreventable events

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:

explain your absence from class, explain failure to submit work, or to submit work on time, explain cases where your academic performance falls below expectations.

Mitigating circumstances must be:

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.



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:

the class, assessment or deadline in question, the nature of the circumstances and their effect on your work.

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

http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/disciplinaryregulations/index.html



seen you during the period of the condition and is not a close friend or relative. Documentary evidence must normally be presented in English, or in the original language with a certified translation into English.

Consideration of Mitigating Circumstances

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

your control, 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 Programme Director of Laureate Online Education, will review the mitigating circumstances evidence that you provide relating to a specific assessment submission and make a decision whether to accept this or reject it. The findings of the MCC are reported to the Programme Examination Board as appropriate.

Decisions on Mitigating Circumstances

Academic judgments can only be based upon academic evidence in the form of your work. Whilst evidence of mitigating circumstances might suggest that you may not have had a fair and uncompromised opportunity to demonstrate your academic achievement, it cannot indicate what the academic outcome should be. Therefore, the Programme Examination Board will have the authority to consider an appropriate response in each case of confirmed mitigating circumstances.

If the Mitigating Circumstances Committee (MCC) do not agree that there have been mitigating circumstances, then normally that response will be that the grade awarded by the Instructor will stand. If the MCC find that mitigating circumstances were a factor, the response may be either to review the grade or to allow you to re-sit without penalty.



Assessments and Awards

Eligibility for an Award

In general, the programmes will operate within the University of Roehampton’s regulations governing postgraduate taught programmes. You will be required to achieve 180 credits from the appropriate modules as defined in the curriculum map, including the Management Research Project, in order to receive the degree of MBA, MSc Information Systems Management and MSc Project Management. If you achieve 120 credits from the programme’s modules, as outlined in this documentation, but do not complete the Management Research Project, you will receive the degree of Postgraduate Diploma in the respective specialism. If you complete 60 credits, you will receive the award of Postgraduate Certificate.

Master’s Degrees

Master’s Degrees are classified on the basis of the average of the percentage marks in the best 180 credits which you have achieved at the University (i.e. not through credit transfer), irrespective of subject, rounded to the nearest whole number. Each mark is weighted in the calculation according to the credit value of the module to which it applies. Where you have achieved fewer than 180 credits at the University, the award will be classified on the basis of the average of the percentage marks in the best five- sixths of the credits which you have achieved at the University, irrespective of subject, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Master’s Degrees are classified on the following scale from the average mark which has been reached using the relevant calculation set out above. Distinction 70-100% Merit 60-69% Pass 50-59%

Postgraduate Diplomas

Postgraduate Diplomas are classified on the basis of the average of the percentage marks in the best 120 credits which you have achieved at the University (i.e. not through credit transfer), irrespective of subject, rounded to the nearest whole number. Each mark is weighted in the calculation according to the credit value of the module to which it applies. Where you have achieved fewer than 120 credits at the University, the award will be classified on the basis of the average of the percentage marks in the best five-sixths of the credits which you have achieved at the University, irrespective of subject, rounded to the nearest whole number.



Postgraduate Diplomas are classified on the following scale from the average mark which has been reached using the relevant calculation set out above.

Distinction 70-100%

Merit 60-69%

Pass 50-59%


16 Last updated on: 17 February 2015

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.



Module Assessment Criteria

Criteria for Module Assessments

An excellent answer (70% or above): Distinction

You have used a wide range of secondary sources, including academic articles as well as textbooks. These are clearly relevant to the practical problem addressed and they are used to inform that practical problem. You demonstrated a clear, thorough understanding of key concepts, and developed arguments that address multiple perspectives on the problem. You have engaged with the relevant models and theories in a critical manner, including questioning or evaluating the basis on which models and theories are established. Where appropriate you have supplemented this with robust primary data, and demonstrated an understanding of the limitations of the data.

You have clearly understood and addressed all aspects of the question or task. Your analysis of the data you have collected is rigorous and critical. You clearly understand the issues and dilemmas of your argument and its complexity. You have clearly related your data to the problem that you set yourself, all your arguments are well supported and you have brought together your arguments in an original way.

Your assignment is written in clear, concise, technically correct English. It is well structured with the arguments presented in a logical order and making a coherent whole. All references are correctly and consistently cited in Harvard format.

A good answer (60-69%): Merit

You have incorporated some relevant secondary sources. Y ou demonstrated an essential understanding of key concepts from the reading and show you have thought about the key models and theories. Where appropriate you have supplemented this by primary data which has been carefully collected using appropriate methodologies.

Your assignment is clearly addressed to the question or task. You have competently analysed the data and clearly related it to the problem that you set yourself. Your arguments are generally well supported and defensible.

Your assignment is written in clear English and is broadly well structured. There are only minor errors in referencing and expression, and few “typos”.

An acceptable answer (50-59%): Pass

Secondary sources may be limited or sources may be used that are not relevant to the problem: however, ideas from the literature are broadly understood and accurately described. Where appropriate secondary sources are supplemented by primary data; although there may be some flaws and limitations to that data.



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, well- supported 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.



A good answer (60-69%): Merit

You demonstrated that you were able to work effectively in a group with peers from diverse organisational and cultural backgrounds.

You contributed to the dialogue by offering constructive critique, alternative viewpoints, probing questions, or additional resources; your comments often contributed to others’ learning.

You engaged in some critical self-reflection, including explanation and examples of positive learning strategies used and ways in which you could have improved your approach to learning. You articulated at least one key idea gained from the module and how you might use this idea in future practice.

Your contributions are written in clear English and are broadly well structured. There are only minor errors in mechanics and expression, and few “typos”.

An acceptable answer (50-59%): Pass

You demonstrated some ability to work in a group with peers from diverse organisational and cultural backgrounds, but participated sporadically, stayed in a “follow” role, and allowed others to do most of the work.

You contributed to the dialogue by occasionally offering alternative viewpoints, probing questions, or additional resources; your comments were relevant but typically did not extend the dialogue or contribute to others’ learning.

You attempted some self-reflection on your learning, and articulated at least one key idea gained from the module and how you might use this idea in future practice.

Your English is comprehensible (although there may be some errors).

You will not pass (less than 50%) if:

You interact inappropriately with your group members, using overbearing, rude, or abusive language. You do not respond to the question or task posed. You fail to participate in any dialogue. You do not submit a written self-reflection. Your English cannot be understood.



Management Research Project Assessment Process

Assessment

The Management Research Project (MRP) will be assessed by two assessors; the student’s MRP

Supervisor and a second ‘blind’ assessor selected by Laureate from the UoRL online Supervisors.

The assessors will assess the MRP independently of each other. The MRP assessors will

normally take 3 weeks from the submission of the MRP to complete the assessment and submit

their recommended grades for the MRP.

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) 90-100

(ii) 80-89

(iii) 70-79

(iv) 60-69

(v) 50-59

(vi) 40-49

(vii) 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.

Re-sitting the Management Research Project (MRP) If a student fails the MRP, one re-sit may be allowed. The decision to allow a re-sit of the MRP

lies with the Examination Board. The Examination Board will consider the student’s academic

record and performance. Normally, a student who is allowed to re-sit the MRP will be permitted

to work on the same topic and to revise the submitted MRP.

When the student fails the MRP due to academic misconduct, and if the Examination Board

decides to allow a re-sit of the MRP, normally the student will be required to work on the same

topic. However, in this case an original approach to the topic will be required and restrictions

about the re-use of own work will apply.

In exceptional circumstances, the Exam Board may decide to require the student to work on a

different topic. In this case, the student will be given an additional 4 weeks to work on a new

Research Proposal (outside the RM module) with the guidance of the MRP Supervisor.



Students who are allowed to re-sit the MRP will have 26 weeks to complete and submit their

new MRP. The percentage grade awarded for the re-sit will be capped at the pass mark of 50%,

in line with the University’s policy on grade penalties for re-sits .

Re-using own work in the MRP Work submitted for assessment should be work written by the student specifically for this

assessment. Although copying own work is not regarded as plagiarism, the student will not

receive a passing grade for the new submission unless the new submission is original and they

have included substantial new discussion and analysis. If a student chooses to re-use any part of

previously submitted work he/she must always cite and reference the previous work.

Late submissions of the MRP One of the most important requirements is that the MRP must be completed as scheduled. The

final version of the MRP should be submitted by the end of week 26 of the MRP. If a student fails

to submit the MRP at the required time, the following penalties will be applied:

1. Where the MRP is submitted up to the end of day 14 after the deadline, the percentage

mark of the MRP will be capped at 50%

2. Where the MRP is submitted later than the end of day 14 after the deadline, the

percentage mark will be zero.

In these situations the ‘end of the day’ is considered to be 12 midnight in the student’s time

zone.

Extensions to the MRP deadline due to Mitigating Circumstances If circumstances beyond the student’s immediate control negatively affect the student’s ability

to submit the MRP within the specified deadline, the student may ask for these mitigating

circumstances to be taken into account in order to:

o Explain their failure to submit the MRP on time and request an extension of the

deadline for the submission of the MRP

Extensions will not be granted for the submission of the MRP except in clearly unexpected

circumstances beyond the student’s control, such as in cases of material personal, family,

medical or work emergencies. The case for an extension will need to be made in writing with

supporting documentation. Such requests should be submitted to and will be considered by the

Mitigating Circumstances Committee (MCC). In the request, the student should justify the length

of the requested extension. The final decision regarding the length of any extension will be

taken by the MCC.

Any requests for mitigating circumstances should normally be submitted at most two weeks

from the occurrence of the mitigating circumstances, and one week in advance of the deadline

for the submission of the MRP. In exceptional situations where an event occurs close to the MRP



submission deadline, a mitigating circumstance may be submitted up to the deadline itself.

Where a mitigating circumstances request is submitted close to or on the deadline for the MRP,

the request will be acknowledged and dealt with as quickly as possible. However, students

should be aware of the delay between submission of a request to the MCC and receiving the

outcome.

While the request is processed and under consideration by the MCC, the student should

continue working on the MRP as the time between the submission deadline and the decision of

the MCC will form part of any further time allowed, if an extension is approved.

The student should refer to the Appeals process if they wish to appeal against the decision of the

MCC.

Please refer to the Mitigating Circumstances Policy and Procedure section in this document for

further information.

Management Research Project Mitigating Circumstances Policy and

Procedure

Mitigating Circumstances Summary

A student’s ability to submit their Management Research Project (MRP) within the specified

deadline may be negatively affected by circumstances beyond the student’s immediate control.

These circumstances are described as ‘mitigating circumstances’.

Mitigating circumstances may, for example, include:

illness affecting the student

serious illness affecting a close family member

bereavement

other unforeseeable or unpreventable events

It is the student’s responsibility to report any circumstances that they wish to be taken into

consideration. If a student wishes to claim mitigating circumstances, they should discuss this

with the Student Support Team. Independent documentary evidence, such as medical

certificates, must be provided in all cases to verify mitigating circumstances. Failure to provide

such evidence will result in the case not being heard by the Mitigating Circumstances Committee

(MCC).

Definitions

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:



significant, meaning that they should have had a clearly detrimental effect on the

student’s 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 student’s 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:

the class, assessment or deadline in question,

the nature of the circumstances and their effect on the student’s ability to submit the

MRP.

Only information which is included in the student’s written submission may be considered.

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 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



provide evidence at the appropriate time. In such cases, however, the delay may limit the

options available to the University in response to the circumstances presented.

The nature of the evidence that the student provides 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 letter from a suitably qualified medical practitioner who has seen

the student during the period of the condition, and is not a close friend or relative.

Documentary evidence must normally be presented in English, or in the original language with a

verified translation into English.

Consideration of Mitigating Circumstances

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.



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 student’s 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.



4. Using tools suggested or provided by the University, including the TurnItIn text-matching database on submission of assignments for assessment.

Supporting Resources

To assist you with understanding and effecting good academic practice, we encourage you to view the following links:

University of Roehampton’s Online Library Guide to Referencing - http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/library/referencing/generalreferencing.h tml

There is a separate link on the page that refers you to the University of Roehampton Referencing Style Guide on various referencing styles. You should refer only to the style used for your programme.

University of Roehampton’s How to… Study Guide - http://core.roehampton.ac.uk/repository/search/dbm.pl?guid=d07f6af8-481c-

47ea-8a0a-c4bfba656bc7 Within the guide, pay particular attention to the How to… avoid

plagiarism section on pages 49-54.

Requirements

Although we expect you to learn the rules of the referencing system applicable to your programme, we acknowledge that, particularly early on in your studies, you may be inexperienced at academic writing. Therefore, we require that you should have at least attempted to acknowledge your sources by using the following:

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.

http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/library/referencing/generalreferencing.html

http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/library/referencing/generalreferencing.html

http://core.roehampton.ac.uk/repository/search/dbm.pl?guid=d07f6af8-481c-47ea-8a0a-c4bfba656bc7

http://core.roehampton.ac.uk/repository/search/dbm.pl?guid=d07f6af8-481c-47ea-8a0a-c4bfba656bc7



Poor Academic Quality

Definition of Poor Academic Quality

In the context of this policy, Poor Academic Quality is defined as a relatively small amount of paraphrasing or the use of quotations and diagrams, charts, etc. without adequate citation and/or referencing. This would normally be where you have failed to do at least two of the following: (i) use quotation marks, (ii) cite, (iii) reference around a paragraph or two of material from an unacknowledged source or sources.

Assessment of Poor Academic Quality

Where the Faculty member identifies an issue of poor quotation, citation and referencing skills which includes only one of the above, they will assess whether you can correct this through additional education and support, and they will direct you towards appropriate resources.

The Faculty member will take the failure to quote, cite and reference correctly into account when grading the work and apply a grade penalty which reflects your poor scholarship, according to the rubric below under ‘Penalties for Poor Academic Quality’. The feedback you receive from the Faculty member will reflect why the grade was awarded, including mention of the penalty for poor academic quality in citing and referencing.

Penalties for Poor Academic Quality

Reduction of Grades Any incident of paraphrasing, quotation, or use of diagrams, charts, etc. without proper use of quotation marks, adequate citation and reference should be investigated by the Faculty member for poor academic quality. Work paraphrased or copied without acknowledgement as per the minimum requirements, as defined in the Minimum Requirements section above, would be an indicator of Poor Academic Quality and will lead to a reduced mark for the work concerned.

The Faculty member should apply and record a reduced mark for the assessment and s/he will send an informal warning letter to you informing you that the incident is unacceptable, but it will not be formally reported as academic misconduct on this occasion.



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 person’s 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.



Falsification It shall be an offence for you to invent or alter facts, data, quotations or references without acknowledgement. Collusion You shall not assist another student, or knowingly be assisted by another person, in gaining an unfair advantage in an academic assessment. Cheating You shall not engage in conduct that sets out to undermine the security, integrity or fairness of an assessment; this includes obtaining, introducing, using or sharing information or materials without permission.

Penalties for Academic Misconduct

All instances of suspected academic misconduct and repeated or significant instances of poor academic quality will be referred by the Faculty member to the Programme Director, who will consult with the University’s Disciplinary Officer to decide if the case warrants being investigated according to the University’s established procedures for Academic Misconduct. Should Academic Misconduct be proven, then the University’s Disciplinary Officer will recommend an appropriate penalty in accordance with the University’s Student Disciplinary Regulations (please refer to the regulations valid for investigations commencing in the 2012/13 academic year), including the possible termination of your studies.

Use of Essay Mills and Essay Banks

Essay Mills and Essay Banks are services which provide original or off-the-shelf answers and solutions to academic questions, usually for a fee. Where a Faculty member has reason to believe that you have made use of one of these services, either as a provider of the service or as a customer who subsequently submits that work for assessment, then you will automatically be deemed to have potentially breached the University’s academic regulations and all relevant details will be referred to the Programme Director, in the first instance, as an issue of Academic Misconduct, to be forwarded to the Disciplinary Officer for investigation.

Investigations After Work is Graded

You should not assume, if you have breached the University’s academic regulations and the work has subsequently been graded, that no further investigation for misconduct may take place. Academic Misconduct is not time-bound. Should information come to light which throws doubt on the originality of your assessed work, then both the University and Laureate reserve the right to investigate any such information and take appropriate action.


http://www.roehampton.ac.uk/uploadedFiles/Pages_Assets/PDFs_and_Word_Docs/Corporate_Information/Taught-Degree-Regulations.pdf



Procedure for Student Complaints

Definition of Complaints

The University of Roehampton London and Laureate Online Education endeavour to provide quality in all of their activities. However, there may be times when students feel that they have not received the high quality of education or level of service which might be expected. In those circumstances, a student is entitled to complain, and to make known his or her concerns without fear of reprisal or victimisation. A student can expect the University to deal with a complaint seriously, fairly, within a reasonable timescale and, where appropriate, in confidence. The University of Roehampton London and Laureate Online Education define a complaint as:

“An expression of dissatisfaction either about the programmes, courses, facilities or services provided by the University/Laureate or about actions or lack of actions by the University/Laureate or its staff. ”

This procedure does not cover the following matters for which separate procedures exist:

Appeals against academic assessment: see Assessment Appeals Policy [LINK] Appeals against decisions of the Academic Progress Committee Appeals against decisions of the Mitigating Circumstances Committee

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.



Stages of Complaints

Stage One: Review the University of Roehampton London’s Student Contract

To ensure that student expectations are realistic, and that a student has valid grounds for making a complaint, he or she should first consult the University of Roehampton London’s Student Contract listed at: http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/policies/ and the University of Roehampton Online Terms and Conditions listed at: http://roehampton-online.com/Privacy%20Policy.aspx. The Contract and Terms and Conditions set out the general entitlements and responsibilities of students. If there are no grounds under the Student Contract for the complaint, the University will still be keen to receive feedback on student perceptions of its service, but it may not be handled using this procedure. Instead, the student may be advised to either use the feedback survey available at the conclusion of each module or discuss the matter with their Student Support Manager. Please note that we will not accept anonymous or third party complaints.

Stage Two: Make an Informal Complaint

If, having re-read the Student Contract, the student believes there are valid grounds to make a complaint, the next step is to make an informal complaint. The University of Roehampton London and Laureate Online Education believe that, if possible, complaints should be resolved through informal discussions. Our experience is that the vast majority of complaints are resolved at this stage. Complaints regarding the experience received within a specific class should be addressed to the faculty member of that class. Other complaints should be addressed to the main contact at Laureate Online Education (typically a Student Support Manager). It is expected that the student will communicate their concern directly with the member of staff or faculty member concerned via email. In addition to describing the nature of the complaint, the student should always suggest a solution to the issue. Complaints should not be made in online classroom discussions or other public forums. The student should not proceed to the next step unless they have been unable to resolve the complaint informally, or have been unable to raise and discuss the issue with the responsible person within four weeks.

Stage Three: Submit a Formal Written Complaint to Laureate Online Education

If the student cannot resolve his or her complaint informally (or cannot discuss the matter with the person concerned within four weeks), the student should contact the Student Support Manager to attain a Complaint Form and send the completed form by email to [email protected] indicating in the subject line the name of the university and the student name and ID. The student will receive confirmation that the complaint has been received.

http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/policies/

http://roehampton-online.com/Privacy%20Policy.aspx


mailto:[email protected]?subject=Student%20Name%20(Student%20Number%20xxxxxxxx)



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 [email protected]. The subject line of the email should clearly state ‘Complaint Escalation’ and include the student’s name and ID. In this email the student should state:

The reason for the complaint A brief summary of previous communications related to the complaint Why these communications have not resolved the issue What remedy the student is seeking

The student will receive confirmation of receipt of the complaint. The senior Laureate representative will review the complaint along with the communications that have taken place in previous steps, and will determine whether the complaint has received the correct care and attention. A final response will be provided to the student in writing normally within 15 working days.

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Complaint%20Escalation%20(Student%20Number%20xxxxxxxx)



Stage Five: Escalate the Complaint to the University of Roehampton London

Laureate aims to resolve student complaints as early as possible by the above process. However, if the student believes that the complaint was not handled in compliance with the standard of the complaint procedure, he or she is entitled to escalate the complaint to the University of Roehampton London’s Deputy University Secretary (Governance). Please see the University of Roehampton London’s Student Complaints Procedure at http://ws1.roehampton.ac.uk/universitysecretariat/StudentComplaintsProcedure.pdf for further details. When the student submits a complaint to the University of Roehampton London he or she should ensure that a copy of the final response the student received at Step Four above is included in the documentation that is sent to the University. If the student has not made a satisfactory attempt to resolve the complaint using the previous steps of the complaint process, the student will be asked to do so before the University of Roehampton London reviews the complaint. After completion of the University of Roehampton London’s procedures, if the student has not been able to agree to a solution with the University, he or she can take the matter to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) for Higher Education. The Independent Adjudicator considers such disputed decisions for universities across the UK, acting in an ‘ombudsman’ role. The service is free of charge to students and details are available on the OIA website: http://www.oiahe.org.uk

http://www.liv.ac.uk/tqsd/pol_strat_cop/stud_complnt_proc.pdf

http://ws1.roehampton.ac.uk/universitysecretariat/StudentComplaintsProcedure.pdf



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. Have successfully studied 3 different modules

b. Have passed all three modules at first sitting

c. Have no academic misconduct violations

d. Are financially ready/ able to continue their studies

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 University’s 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 student’s

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.



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 student’s 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.



Responsibilities of Student Representatives

As the Student Representative of your programme, you will serve a 12-month term of office

from the date of your election. During this period, your responsibilities include:

Maintaining an active profile at a dedicated Student Representative inspirenet account

that is published to all fellow students

Receiving feedback and queries from fellow students; you get this in one of two ways:

o By private message to a dedicated Student Representative inspirenet account we

will provide for this purpose.

o Within the new Student Community for your programme in inspirenet.

You should be able to check the dedicated inspirenet account and the Student

Community at least once a week and acknowledge the receipt of any feedback or redirect

the student to the appropriate person or department if the issue they have does not fall

under your responsibilities.

Requesting feedback from fellow students in the Student Community for your

programme – you would especially need to do this in advance of the SSLC meetings that

are held once each year, but may have to do this at other times if there are specific topics

that the University and Laureate Online Education require feedback on.

Compiling all feedback received from students in a tracking sheet.

Preparing a report before each SSLC meeting, summarising the student feedback you

have received during the previous months for submission to the Representation

Coordinators.

Attending the SSLC meetings – these last between one and two hours per meeting. These

meetings take place once a year via phone conference, so no travel is required.

Attending Local Programme Board meetings – these meetings normally take place no

more than three times a year, and you can attend via teleconference.

Using the Student Community to provide feedback to your fellow students on the

outcome of each of the SSLC meetings.

Student Representatives should expect to spend an average of no more than one hour a week on

tasks related to their role as a Student Representative, with the exception of the period

immediately before SSLC meetings when the time requirement will increase slightly.

If Student Representatives are unable to meet the tasks as set out under the responsibilities

section, the Representation Coordinator will contact the Student Representatives to review the

situation and discuss options. If the current Student Representative decides to step down, the

next available candidate with the highest number of votes will be appointed. Should none of the

other candidates be available, then new elections will be held.

Eligibility to become a Student Representative

Student Representatives must meet the following criteria in order to stand for election:



They must be aware of the responsibilities of the Student Representative, be committed

to the role and have sufficient time to dedicate to the defined tasks.

They must be an active student on one of the University of Roehampton’s online

programmes.

They should not be eligible for graduation during the 12-month period they would serve

if elected as a Student Representative.

They must have successfully completed the first module of their programme.

Election of Student Representatives

Elections are held every March/April, with students from each programme electing a fellow

student to hold the position for twelve months. Students that are interested in taking on the role

will complete and submit a Student Representative Application Form to the Representation

Coordinator, during an allotted time period. The dates for closing nominations and for elections

are at the discretion of Laureate. However, there should be a period of at least one week

between nominations opening and closing, and a sufficient period of time for circulation of

information before the day(s) of election.

Where only one student comes forward for any particular programme, that student will be

elected as Student Representative for that programme.

In the case that there are multiple candidates, students will be invited to present their case in an

appropriate online forum as to why they should be elected as Student Representative. Students

will then be given the opportunity to vote for a particular Student Representative for their

programme.



Full Policies of the University of Roehampton

Academic Regulations

To read the academic regulations for the University of Roehampton, view the following link: http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/programmedetails/acregsver9contents.asp

Mitigating Circumstances Policy Document

To read the mitigating circumstances policy document for the University of Roehampton, view the following webpage: http://www.roehampton.ac.uk/corporate-information/Policies/

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)

http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/programmedetails/acregsver9contents.asp

http://www.roehampton.ac.uk/corporate-information/Policies/




Official Student Forms

DOUBLING UP MODULES REQUEST FORM

Instructions 1. For full details of the policy on Doubling up modules, please refer to the Academic Policies at

http://roehampton-online.com/Privacy%20Policy.aspx.

2. Students are encouraged to discuss this with the Student Support team before submitting a request.

3. Such request can only be submitted after successful completion of at least 60 credits of taught modules.

4. A request must be submitted at least two weeks prior to the start of the modules in question.

5. The completed request form and supporting documentation must be submitted to the Programme Director via

email.

6. 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.

Reason of the request: Please indicate why you are requesting to study two modules at a time.




Justification of the request: Please indicate why your request to double up these two modules as per above should be considered, and

provide relevant supporting documentation to verify how you can devote the required time to study two

modules at a time.

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.



Student Representative Application Form

Instructions

1. For full details of the student representation structure, please refer to the “Student Representative” section of

the Academic Policies at http://roehampton-online.com/Privacy%20Policy.aspx.

2. Elections are held every December.

3. In order to stand for election, you must meet the following criteria:

a. You must be aware of the responsibilities of the Student Representative, be committed to the role and

have sufficient time to dedicate to the defined tasks.

b. You must be an active student on one of the University of Roehampton’s online programmes.

c. You should not be eligible for graduating during the 12-month period you would serve if elected as a

Student Representative.

d. You must have successfully completed the first module of your programme.

4. The completed application form must be submitted to the Representation Coordinator within the instructed

deadline.

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




Why did you

want to study

online with the

University of

Roehampton?

Please give three reasons why you think you would make a good Student Representative:

Anything else you would like to say?

Student’s Signature Date


to the best of my knowledge. I consent to the information being used in the consideration of the student

representative.



SUBMISSION DEADLINE EXTENSION REQUEST FORM

Instructions

1. For full details of the policy on Extensions to Submission Deadlines, please refer to the Academic Policies at

http://roehampton-online.com/Privacy%20Policy.aspx.

2. The completed request form and supporting documentation must be submitted to your faculty member in

advance of the submission deadline.

3. The extension request together with all supporting documentation MUST be submitted in class in Messages.

Requests submitted via email will not be considered.

4. Deadline extension requests are normally declined if no supporting evidence is received.

5. There is no guarantee that a request for a deadline extension will be granted, therefore, you must make such a

request in sufficient time to allow you to complete the final assessment by the original deadline should your

request be denied.

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.

Details of Exceptional Circumstances: Please provide a concise but comprehensive description of the exceptional circumstances which affected your

ability to meet the instructed submission deadline(s), including details of the nature of the circumstances. The

circumstances outlined here must be relevant to the submission of the assessment in question and must explain

the reasons why you were unable to submit the assessment in question on time.

Supporting Documentation: Please list all supporting documentation that you will be sending with this form.


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.


Roehampton Academic Policies 2013

Documents

Transcript of Roehampton Academic Policies 2013