Because there are two main types of assignment and assessment in the college, appeals against results fall into two separate categories. The grounds on which appeals can be made and the methods for making such appeals are outlined in the various stages as follows. This is a summary of the assessment appeals procedures. The full version is available from the college office.
Disputed marks must, in the first instance, be referred by the student in person to the subject leader. The student then has recourse to the head of the section through a written statement (the appeal) outlining the reasons for not accepting the mark. In the event that the original marker and the head of section are the same person, the initial approach by the student should still be in person, followed by a written statement. If neither the counsel of the head of section nor the arbitration of the second marker is accepted by the student, the case may be referred to the Committee of Undergraduate Studies for conciliation; however the student should be aware that any weight of the appeal must rest on the grounds that the student was misled through inappropriate instruction and briefing and consequently produced work of an inadequate standard. An appeal at this stage based only on the student's perception of the standard of the work - in spite of not having been recognised by two markers - is likely to be rejected. CUGS will not arbitrate on the quality of the work per se.
The procedure for assessment of folios in the college has a form of double-marking inherently built into it. Folios are not normally assessed by one person in the college but a panel of staff members. Students may, however, appeal against a grade on the basis of unfair treatment. The substance of the appeal will normally only be considered to have weight if the grounds for appeal pertain to technical discrepancies, especially:
The artistic synthesis of disparate opinion is largely the responsibility of the student. It is only on matters of policy that staff are required to agree. Students should therefore be advised (i) to explain the resolution which they have sought between disparate voices and (ii) to retain a record of the divergent advice which they have received.
Another circumstance which might intuitively appear to warrant reassessment on the basis of the student having been misled is, ironically, encouragement. A student may encounter more positive feedback than negative feedback but find, at the end of the semester, that he or she has failed. The discrepancy between the messages of encouragement during the semester and the fail result at the end of the semester is not, in itself, the fault of the lecturer. A gesture of good faith on the lecturer's part should not be taken to constitute grounds for revising the panel's decision.
The student must, in the first instance, seek an explanation in person from the subject leader. If the student is not reconciled to the grade, he or she then has recourse to the head of the section through a written statement (the appeal) outlining the reasons for not accepting the mark. If, after receiving advice from the panel, the head of section is unable to resolve the matter of the mark, the case may be referred to the Committee of Undergraduate Studies for conciliation; however, the student should be made aware that any weight of the appeal must rest on technical grounds, as outlined above. Because double-marking is inherent in the panel assessment process, the academic judgement on the quality of the work per se is final. The appeal can only logically be pursued on the grounds that the student was misled through inadequate instruction and briefing and consequently produced work inappropriate to the assessment criteria. An appeal based only on the student's perception of the standard of the work - in spite of not having been recognised by the panel - is likely to be rejected. The Committee of Undergraduate Studies will not arbitrate on the quality of the work per se; it will recommend a review of the work only if convinced that the student was misled in producing the work subsequently judged inadequate. In other words, a second panel can only be recommended by the Committee of Undergraduate Studies if it has been established that the student was misinformed or had otherwise been treated unfairly.
The remarking of performances, installations and oral presentations is difficult because they are often impossible to reconstruct. These categories may arise in both the studio area and the theory area, as when students give a class paper which is assessed by a single lecturer on the spot. Marking in this manner is legitimate; however, provision should always be made for reassessment on the basis of a written or taped or videoed record. Students are advised at the beginning of the semester that if they might want their work reassessed at a later date, they should take care to create and retain a hard copy of their work in these ephemeral genres. In the case of a class paper, comprehensive notes should be used for re-assessment.
| Published by Monash University, Clayton, Victoria
3168 Copyright © Monash University 1996 - All Rights Reserved - Caution Authorised by the Academic Registrar December 1996 |