Students want to widen scope of revision of papers

As exam fever grips the university, students are proposing to extend the grounds on which they can demand a revision of paper.

They also want to be given the right to ask for a revision in the case of credit tests, assignments and theses, as well to appeal a final degree classification.

The proposals are contained in an 80-page report issued by the University Students` Council suggesting reforms of the procedures governing student complaints, academic appeals and disciplinary procedures.

Under the current regulations, the report explains, students may request a revision of their exam script to ascertain that no error was made in the marks or grade awarded.

However, the academic judgement of the original examiners is not reviewable by the board considering the appeal, and the result can be changed only if it is justified by objective criteria.

The KSU holds that this basis on which a grade may be altered "is extremely unclear and very restrictive".

It therefore proposes that a student should be able to ask for a revision on the basis of "administrative error", "lack of adherence to an assessment procedure" and "evidence of bias or prejudice on the part of one of the examiners", as is the case in most UK universities.

The KSU also suggests that the university extend the principle of revision of paper to all other forms of assessment where revision is possible, such as practical work and design work, as well as to credit tests, assignments and theses.

A further "serious flaw" in the regulatations, according to the council, is the fact that a student may not appeal a final classification. It wonders how it is possible that a student can be denied the right to appeal what is the most important academic decision taken in his or her respect.

It therefore recommends that students be given this right, and that the principles and procedures suggested with regard to revision of papers be adopted.

The council also objects to another practice concerning the revision of papers. Current regulations lay down that a revision be undertaken by the same board of examiners that marked the paper, together with an additional examiner appointed by Senate.

"We believe this procedure is unsatisfactory since it is highly unlikely that any true revision of paper will occur; the probability of the examiners finding fault with their original decision is low," says the KSU in its report.

"We note that in the UK, in the case of academic appeals (of which revision of paper is only one type), a new board is appointed to review the decision made by the original board of examiners, and the student is given the opportunity to be heard by the board and to present oral and written evidence in support of his/her claims.

"We therefore recommend that the procedures currently used in the University of Malta be amended to ensure that the composition of the board entrusted with the revision of paper is adequate, and to give students to opportunity to be heard."

The council says it was motivated to draw up the report by several factors. It would like to see the university conforming to the standards of transparency and fairness required of public bodies, and as a body receiving considerable public funding, to be wholly accountable for its actions and decisions.

"We believe it is not enough for the university to take good decisions concerning its students; it must also be seen to do so, and this is only possible if decisions are made through clearly defined and well-known procedural machanisms."

The council notes how decisions taken by the university have very serious repurcussions on a student`s life, and if incorrect may lead to serious injustices and grave harm being caused to him.

It also believes that adequate and effective procedures for dealing with student complaints and appeals are one of the best ways of achieving a high level of quality assurance at the university.

The council defines student complaints, as opposed to academic appeals that include revision of papers, as being related to the delivery of teaching or some other aspect of the student`s relationship with the university.

In a survey of students, the KSU had found that 22 per cent had cause for complaint, and the council uses this data to back up its call for an adequate complaints procedure.

The council notes with satisfaction that the Senate has recently adopted a Code of Professional Academic Conduct, which lays down sanctions that can be imposed on academic staff for discrimination, improper bias, excessive delay in the submission of a student`s assessment records, unauthorised absence from duties and other forms of misconduct.

Likewise, it is happy to see the adoption of Procedures for Dealing with Complaints of Sexual Harassment.

However, it says these two policies do not cover all types of student complaints: the code of conduct only deals with serious complaints and the sexual harassment procedures only with such complaints.

The council has therefore drawn up a proposed complaints procedure to fill the "vacuum". It suggests that the complaint first be dealt with informally with the person who is the immediate cause of the grievance. Failing this, the "formal stage" will be resorted to, in which the dean of faculty or director of institute investigates and takes steps.

The proposed also provides for confidentiality of the student to be protected as possible, and for an appeal against the decision of the dean or director to be filed.

The report also deals with student disciplinary procedures, which currently fall under regulations aimed at punishing students for offences against the good order and discipline of the university, such as plagiarism and cheating during exams or persistently failing to carry out academic duties such as attending lectures.

Complaints are handled by a committee of discipline, which also recommends the punitive measures to be taken, ranging from reprimand to expulsion.

Among other recommendations, the KSU would like to see information relating to all disciplinary proceedings published in a booklet in order to make sure they are well-known by the students; the specification of time limits for each stage of any disciplinary procedure; and decisions being subject to appeal by the student.

Finally, the report also makes recommendations relating to the University Ombudsman.

It says that in the light of data showing lack of awareness among students of the Ombudsman`s existence and functions, he should promote this awareness more actively.

It also suggest that he make greater use of the press to give his decisions more weight; that he adopt a more probing stance in regard to decisions taken by the university; and to allow him to investigate university matters on his own initiative.

Survey on student complaints

¤ 22 per cent of university students said they had cause for complaint.

¤ 21 per cent said they were not knowledgable at all of the procedures to follow.

¤ 39 per cent said the resolution of their complaint took over two months.

¤ 44 per cent said they would be afraid of the consequences if they were to complain.

¤ 14 per cent of those who complained claimed they had suffered repurcussions following their complaint.

¤ Only four per cent said they knew what procedures to follow when lodging a complaint with the University Ombudsman.