Students who achieve fewer than 120 credits because they have failed to attend an examination or to submit coursework for medical or equivalent reasons that have been accepted by the Board of Examiners are normally entitled to sit a further examination or submit outstanding coursework as required in July and August as a first attempt.
Students who achieve fewer than 120 credits because they have either failed, or failed to attempt, coursework or examinations without a valid excuse, will normally be required to resubmit new pieces of coursework or to resit examinations in their failed modules as necessary in July and August. Such coursework and examinations can only be submitted for a pass mark (i.e. a maximum of 40, applied to the module as a whole). If a student obtains a lower fail mark at the second attempt, the higher mark will stand. To achieve a ‘pass’ on a module students are expected to have demonstrated a reasonable attempt to complete every component of the assessment required for that module. The regulations concerning failures, resits and progress can be found on the University website at: www.shef.ac.uk/calendar. There is also information from the department here: http://www.shef.ac.uk/history/current_students/undergraduate/regulations/progression.
Students who have only achieved 100 or 110 credits at the conclusion of the resit period may be permitted to proceed to Level Three, but only at the discretion of the examiners, who will take into account the general record of the student concerned. Permission to proceed in these circumstances does not imply the waiving of normal course requirements. Progression from Level Two to Level Three with fewer than 100 credits is not permitted under any circumstances.
There were 398 responses to the consultation – 388 in a form that matched or broadly followed the layout of the online consultation, and 10 written submissions which were not included in the quantitative data analysis, but were reflected upon within the qualitative sections. 69 per cent of the responses were from individuals, mostly teachers, while 31 per cent were from organisations.
The majority of respondents (95 per cent of those who responded to the relevant question) agreed with our proposal that students taking AS and A levels should have at least one opportunity to re-sit their exams in the specification for which they studied. The majority of respondents (85 per cent of those who responded to the relevant question) also agreed with our proposal that students re-sitting their AS and A levels should be able to re-sit any of the AS or A level units they have previously taken (including coursework units).
The majority of respondents (96 per cent of those who responded to the relevant question) expressed the view that there should be an additional re-sit opportunity for legacy GCSEs in English, English language and mathematics (including the linked pair) in summer 2017.
Responses were mixed to our proposal that, with the exception of GCSEs in English, English language and mathematics (including the linked pair), there should not be a re-sit opportunity available for legacy GCSEs.. Some respondents expressed the view that very few re-sit opportunities were taken up in subjects other than English, English language or mathematics, and others noted that other GCSEs were not required for progression purposes in the same way. However other respondents commented that students should not be disadvantaged by being in a year group affected by reform, and that students in other year groups had the opportunity to resit their GCSEs, so the opportunity should be made available for this year group. Other respondents, while agreeing that re-sit opportunities did not need to be made available for most GCSE subjects, did note specific subjects in which a re-sit opportunity would be beneficial, including GCSE science subject and other Ebacc subjects.
The majority of respondents who commented specifically on our draft General Condition of Recognition D9, and the saving and transitional provisions for AS, A level and GCSE – the draft rules that would bring into force the proposals around resits – noted that the requirements were sensible, as they would require exam boards to comply with the agreed approach. Some respondents noted that the requirements would need to be updated to reflect whatever decisions are made post-consultation.
Other respondents commented that they did not understand the provisions. The consultation proposed that the same saving and transitional provisions, amended as necessary, should be applied to further legacy AS and A level qualifications without further consultation. The response to this proposal was mixed. 40 per cent of respondents agreed with the proposal setting out that they did not see the need for further consultation on the saving and transitional provisions once the position on re-sits had been announced. While 14 per cent of respondents disagreed, saying that nothing should be done without consultation. 46 per cent of respondents did not express a view either way.
Respondents commented that our proposals would impact on persons who share a protected characteristic in several ways, and set out steps that could be taken to reduce the effect of these impacts, including the suggestion that more re-sit opportunities be made available. Respondents also commented on the impacts of our proposals more generally on students, schools, colleges and/or exam boards.