View Current

Procedures for the Review of Marks or Grades and other Academic Decisions (Coursework)

This is the current version of this document. You can provide feedback on this document to the document author - refer to the Status and Details on the document's navigation bar.

Section 1 - Introduction

(1) These Procedures provide a process for the review of an academic decision, action or omission by a staff member or a committee, or the review of a mark or grade, in a UOW coursework subject.

(2) These Procedures also provide for the appeal of a decision and outcome received in response to a formal review.

(3) These Procedures should be read in conjunction with the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy which includes:

  1. the rules, codes and policies under which a student may request a review, section 4 Operational Scope;
  2. guiding principles by which the university will conduct its formal review and appeals processes, section 5 Guiding Principles;
  3. terms of reference for the Office of the Student Ombudsmen; and
  4. the University’s responsibilities in relation to managing conflicts of interest, record keeping, and the monitoring and improvement of the review and appeals policy and procedures.
Top of Page

Section 2 - Scope

(4) These Procedures apply to all undergraduate and postgraduate coursework students enrolled in subjects at the University.

(5) These Procedures apply where a Higher Degree Research (HDR) student of the University is undertaking a coursework subject as part of their HDR candidature. All other HDR reviews and appeals relating to HDR candidature are addressed under the Higher Degree Research (HDR) Student Academic Complaints Policy.

(6) For offshore students enrolled in a UOW course delivered by a collaborative delivery partner of the University, these Procedures apply with the modifications set out in Schedule 1.

(7) These Procedures do not apply to students studying at the University of Wollongong Dubai (UOWD), who may make academic complaints under the UOWD Student Academic Grievance Policy.

(8) A student may request an explanation of a mark for an assessment task or a final grade for a subject consistent with the student’s right to appropriate and useful feedback on their performance in an assessment task under the Teaching and Assessment: Assessment and Feedback Policy.

(9) A student may also request further explanation for an academic decision, action or omission made by a staff member or a committee in relation to an academic policy including:

  1. Code of Practice – Honours;
  2. Code Of Practice - Work Integrated Learning (Professional Experience)
  3. Coursework Rules;
  4. Credit for Prior Learning Policy;
  5. Standards for the Finalisation of Student Results;
  6. Student Academic Consideration Policy;
  7. Supplementary Assessment Procedure;
  8. Teaching and Assessment: Assessment and Feedback Policy;
  9. Teaching and Assessment - Code of Practice - Teaching;
  10. Teaching and Assessment: Subject Delivery Policy.

(10) Not included in the scope of these Procedures are UOW academic and administrative processes that provide a standalone review, appeal or a complaint resolution process in the relevant supporting policy.

(11) Students wishing to submit a formal complaint about a UOW product, a service or a facility, or the conduct of a student or staff member of the university, should consult the university’s Complaints Management Policy and contact the university’s Complaints Management Centre.

Top of Page

Section 3 - Flowchart

(12) A flowchart depicting the stages in the review and appeal process can be found at Schedule 2.

Top of Page

Section 4 - Stages in the Review and Appeal Process

(13) The stages in the formal review and appeal process are:

  1. Stage 1a (School level): Review by Head of School or nominee (see section 13);
  2. Stage 1b (Faculty level): Appeal to the Faculty Designate (see section 14;
  3. Stage 2: Appeal to the Student Ombudsman (see section 15);
  4. Stage 3: Appeal to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) (see section 16).
Top of Page

Section 5 - Faculty Staff Roles in the Review and Appeal Process

(14) The Stage 1a (School level) - undertaken by the Head of School or the Head of Academic Unit or by a nominee. A nominee will have experience and seniority in relation to the course or subject in which the student is enrolled, for example, Academic Program Director, Discipline Leader or similar.

(15) The Stage 1b (Faculty level) - undertaken by the Faculty Designate. The Faculty Designate will be a senior academic leader in the Faculty in a role such as the Associate Dean Education or the Associate Dean International. Other senior academic leaders may undertake the role of Faculty Designate, however it is recommended that the role be at the level of a Head of School or above.

Top of Page

Section 6 - Time Limits

(16) The following time limits are applied for a review or appeal at each stage:

Stage 1a:
Head of School or nominee
Submit Review Request (Student) Within ten (10) business days of the date the student received the mark or grade, or they were made aware of the academic decision, action or omission.
Head of School or nominee decision Within ten (10) business days of the date the student submits their Stage 1a review request.
Stage 1b:
Faculty Designate
Submit Stage 1b Appeal (Student) Within ten (10) business days of the date the student received a Stage 1a outcome.
Faculty Designate Decision Within ten (10) business days of the date the student submits their Stage 1b appeal.
Stage 2:
Student Ombudsman
Submit Stage 2 Appeal (Student) Within ten (10) business days of the date the student received a Stage 1b outcome.
Student Ombudsman Decision Within twenty (20) business days of the date the student submits their Stage 2 appeal.
Stage 3:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life)
Submit Stage 3 Appeal (Student) Within ten (10) business days of the date the student received a Stage 2 outcome.
DVCA Decision Within ten (10) business days of the date the student submits their Stage 3 appeal.

(17) At each step in the process the staff member to whom the review or appeal has been submitted or assigned:

  1. may exercise their discretion to extend the specified time limit for the submission of a review or appeal, for example, where a student demonstrates compassionate or compelling circumstances; or
  2. in consultation with the student, extend the specified time to provide a decision, for example, where additional time is needed to gather evidence or convene a meeting before an outcome is decided.

(18) Where a time limit is for an outcome is extended, the investigating officer must ensure that:

  1. the student is aware of the rationale for the extension and the new date for receiving a decision; and
  2. that a record of the communication with the student, the rationale for the extension, and the new date is noted in the student’s case file.
Top of Page

Section 7 - Support for Students

(19) At all stages of the academic review and appeal process, a student may seek support. For example, a student may:

  1. seek assistance to interpret university policy or the requirements of the review and appeal process;
  2. seek advice on the preparation of their review request or appeal submission; or
  3. be accompanied and assisted by a support person at any relevant meeting.

(20) Support for students can be provided by staff or students of the university including:

  1. the Faculty Student Support Advisor;
  2. the School or Faculty Head of Students;
  3. a Student Advocacy Officer; or
  4. their relevant Student Systems.
Top of Page

Section 8 - Informal Resolution

(21) Students are encouraged to resolve their query or concern informally by speaking with an appropriate staff member, that has knowledge of the matter. The Subject Coordinator is usually the first person a student will contact.

(22) The university recognises that a student may wish to discuss their query or concern with someone other than their Subject Coordinator, or that the Subject Coordinator may not be available at a time convenient to the student.

(23) Students may also seek informal advice from other staff, such as:

  1. a member of the teaching team;
  2. a Client Services Officer;
  3. a Student Support Officer;
  4. the School or Faculty Head of Students; or
  5. a Student Advocacy Officer.

(24) At all times staff responding to an informal request should attempt to provide the student with an answer to their questions or concerns. Use supporting information such as subject outlines, marking rubrics and policy to assist the student in the resolution of their matter.

(25) After consideration of the student’s query or concern a Subject Coordinator may decide to:

  1. undertake remedial action in line with the responsibilities of their role, such as approving academic consideration or amending an undeclared mark for an assessment task; or
  2. recommend a remedial action to the delegated authority in the Faculty, such as the offer of a supplementary assessment or a change to a student’s mark or grade after the release of results, as per the Standards for the Finalisation of Student Results.

(26) The Subject Coordinator, or other member of staff consulted, will inform the student of their right to request a formal review should they wish to take their matter further.

(27) The student is not required to submit a formal review request unless they believe their query or concern remains unresolved after they have sought an informal resolution.

(28) In accordance with the Academic Advice to Students Policy, where staff provide specialised academic advice that impacts, or is likely to impact on a student's studies, it is recommended that the advice is confirmed in writing, such as by using a SOLS Mail message or by providing it to the student in some other written, electronically recorded form.

(29) Staff involved in an informal attempt to resolve a student’s request or concern will not investigate any subsequent formal review or appeal submitted by the student, as per the Conflict of Interest section in the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy.

Top of Page

Section 9 - Formal Resolution

(30) Where a student is not able to resolve their matter informally, as per section 8, a student may lodge a formal review request within ten business days of the date they were first provided with a mark or grade or they were made aware of the decision, action or omission that impacted their academic progress.

(31) In accordance with clause 16, a student may be allowed to submit a review request after ten business days if they are able to demonstrate that there were compassionate or compelling circumstances preventing them from submitting the request within the timeframe, in accordance with the Compassionate or Compelling Circumstances Guidelines.

(32) Where a student claims compassionate or compelling circumstances have affected their ability to submit their review, they must submit an explanation and evidence to support their claim.

(33) Formal requests and appeals must be submitted using the appropriate online form provided by the university, which is accessible via the university’s complaints management webpage.

Top of Page

Section 10 - Request to Review a Mark or Grade

(34) A student may lodge a formal request for a review of a mark or grade based on the following reasons:

  1. their work was not assessed in accordance with the assessment criteria specified in the relevant subject outline; or
  2. the assessment requirements as specified in the relevant subject outline were varied in an unreasonable way; or
  3. the assessment requirements specified in the relevant subject outline were unreasonably or prejudicially applied to the student; or
  4. an administrative or computation error has occurred in the finalisation of the mark or grade.

(35) The formal request for a review of a mark or grade must:

  1. specify the reason for the request, as per clause 34;
  2. clearly present the rationale for the review;
  3. describe the outcome that is wanted; and
  4. include relevant and current evidence to support the case.

(36) When presenting a rationale for their review request, as per clause 35(b), students are encouraged to refer to the relevant policy in order to clarify the issue they issue they have identified.

Top of Page

Section 11 - Request to Review an Academic Decision

(37) A student may lodge a formal request for a review of an academic decision with regard to the policy documents provided for under these Procedures.

(38) The formal request to review an academic decision, action or omission must:

  1. specify the academic decision, action or omission that is the basis for the request;
  2. clearly present the rationale for the request, identifying how this has affected the student’s academic progress;
  3. describe the outcome that is being sought by the student; and
  4. include relevant and current evidence to support the case.

(39) When specifying the academic decision, action or omission as per clause 38(a) students are encouraged to refer to the relevant policy in order to clarify the issue they have identified.

Top of Page

Section 12 - Administration and Monitoring of Formal Reviews and Appeals

(40) Formal requests and appeals must be managed using the online system and workflow, which is accessible via the university’s staff intranet.

Faculty Administration Requirements

(41) A Faculty Administrator, nominated by each faculty, will review formal Stage 1a requests and Stage 1b appeals and assign cases to the appropriate faculty staff member for investigation, with regard to section 5.

(42) The Faculty Administrator can close a case where there is insufficient information provided by the student or the case is considered to be a duplicate or spam. Where a case is to be closed the Faculty Administrator will contact the student to advise them why the case is being closed.

(43) The Faculty Administrator can reopen a previously closed case and assign the case for investigation, advising the student of any impact on the timeline for investigation.

(44) All Stage 1a and 1b cases will be monitored by the Faculty to whom the case has been submitted. Monitoring of cases will include:

  1. checking for new reviews and appeals in the online system and ensuring cases are assigned for investigation in a timely manner, with regard to section 6;
  2. reviewing new cases to ensure that students have provided the required information;
  3. where a case does not meet the requirements outlined in these Procedures or the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy, contacting the student and advising the student to provide further information or closing the case;
  4. reopening a closed case in response to a request by a student, such as when the student can demonstrate an administrative error has occurred or that compassionate or compelling circumstances warrant the case being reopened;
  5. reviewing cases that have been assigned for investigation to ensure that outcomes are provided within the required timeframe; and
  6. reassigning cases as requested, for example, where a staff member is not available or a staff member has a conflict of interest that prevents them from investigating the case.

Student Ombudsman and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) Administration Requirements

(45) A University Academic Complaint and Appeals Administrator will review Stage 2 and Stage 3 appeals and assign each case to the delegated authority for investigation.

(46) All Stage 2 and Stage 3 cases will be monitored by the Academic Complaints and Appeals Administrator with regard to the monitoring activities set out under clause 44.

(47) An Executive Assistant to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) may support the Stage 3 delegated authority to prepare documentation and correspondence in relation to an appeal.

Top of Page

Section 13 - Stage 1a – Review by Head of School or Nominee

(48) The Head of School or nominee must investigate the request and decide the outcome in line with the time limits as provided for in section 6.

(49) The Head of School or nominee will investigate a review request with consideration to:

  1. what is the description, reason and the rationale provided by the student;
  2. what is the impact of this matter on the student’s academic progress; and
  3. what is the outcome being sought by the student.

(50) In their investigation the Head of School or nominee will also consider:

  1. information provided by the student regarding any feedback and academic advice they may have received in their attempt to resolve their matter informally;
  2. information provided by the Subject Coordinator (or other staff member) regarding any feedback or any academic advice given to the student;
  3. whether there was a moderation of assessment process, as per the Teaching and Assessment: Assessment and Feedback Policy, that was employed in the subject where the student’s matter arose;
  4. supporting documentation such as the subject outline, marking rubric, a copy of assessed student work, feedback provided on marked work, medical certificates etc.;
  5. the relevant policy or procedure and how this was applied in the student’s case; and
  6. any compassionate or compelling circumstance that may have relevance to the case.

(51) The Head of School or nominee may request further information from the student or from relevant staff either in person, by phone or other means, such as email.

Deciding an Outcome

(52) After investigating the review request the Head of School or nominee may:

  1. decline a review request, outline the rationale for their decision to the student and take no further action; or
  2. uphold a review request, outline the rationale for their decision to the student and recommend remedial action.

(53) If a review request is upheld, the Head of School or nominee may:

  1. recommend a new or revised mark and/or grade (to be approved by the delegated authority in accordance with the Standards for the Finalisation of Student Results);
  2. recommend other action be undertaken in relation to an academic decision provided for in a university policy and, if they are not the delegated authority, forward this recommendation to the delegated authority for approval.

(54) The Head of School or nominee must advise the student of their right to appeal the Stage 1a decision to the Faculty Designate.

(55) It is the responsibility of the Head of School or nominee to ensure that any recommended action is undertaken in a timely manner. This includes action that is to be taken by the student, a faculty administrative officer or an academic staff member in the faculty.

Appeal of a Stage 1a Outcome

(56) A student may submit an appeal against the outcome of a review request on the following grounds:

  1. the final decision and outcome provided at Stage 1a was not supported by the available evidence;
  2. the faculty has not acted in accordance with the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy or these Procedures in the handling of the case at Stage 1a of the process. This is also known as ‘providing procedural fairness’; or
  3. relevant additional information is now available that was not previously available.

(57) Any such appeal will be submitted to the Faculty Designate and shall:

  1. state the grounds for the appeal as per clause 56;
  2. provide a rationale;
  3. describe the outcome that is being sought; and
  4. include relevant documentary evidence.
Top of Page

Section 14 - Stage 1b – Appeal to the Faculty Designate

(58) The Faculty Designate must investigate the appeal and decide the outcome in line with the time limits as provided for in section 6.

(59) The Faculty Designate will investigate a review request with consideration to:

  1. The grounds for the appeal and the rationale provided by the student in accordance with clause 56 and clause 57; and
  2. the outcome being sought by the student.

(60) In their investigation the Faculty Designate will also consider:

  1. information provided by the student at Stage 1a;
  2. information provided by the Subject Coordinator (or other staff member) regarding any feedback or any academic advice given to the student;
  3. supporting documentation;
  4. the relevant policy or procedure and how this was applied in the student’s case; and
  5. any compassionate or compelling circumstances that may have relevance to the case.

(61) The Faculty Designate may request further information from the student or from relevant staff either in person, by phone or other means, such as email.

Deciding an Outcome

(62) After investigating an appeal, the Faculty Designate may:

  1. decline the appeal, outline the rationale for their decision to the student and take no further action; or
  2. uphold the appeal, outline the rationale for their decision to the student and recommend remedial action.

(63) If an appeal is upheld, the Faculty Designate may recommend action be undertaken in relation to an academic decision, as provided for in a university policy, and forward this recommendation to the delegated authority for approval.

(64) The Faculty Designate must advise the student of their right to appeal the Stage 1b decision to the Student Ombudsman.

(65) It is the responsibility of the Faculty Designate to ensure that any recommended action is undertaken in a timely manner. This includes action that is to be taken by the student, a faculty administrative officer or an academic staff member in the faculty.

Appeal of a Stage 1b Outcome

(66) Where a student is not satisfied with the outcome of Stage 1b of the process, the student may appeal, in writing, to the Student Ombudsman within ten business days of the date of the response from the Faculty Designate, on the grounds that:

  1. the final decision and outcome provided at Stage 1a or 1b was not supported by the available evidence;
  2. the Faculty has not acted in accordance with the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy or these Procedures in the handling of the case at Stage 1a or 1b of the process. This is also known as ‘providing procedural fairness’; or
  3. relevant new or additional information is now available that was not available at Stage 1a or 1b.

(67) The Stage 2 appeal must:

  1. state the grounds for the appeal as per clause 66;
  2. provide a rationale;
  3. describe the outcome that is being sought; and
  4. include relevant documentary evidence.
Top of Page

Section 15 - Stage 2 – Appeal to Student Ombudsman

(68) The Student Ombudsman will decide an outcome for a Stage 2 appeal within twenty (20) business days of having received the referral.

(69) Should the Student Ombudsman, following an initial review of the appeal, decide that the matter requires further consideration, the Student Ombudsman may request the Faculty prepare a report for the Student Ombudsman on the background to the matter.

(70) The Faculty must comply with any reasonable request for information as it relates to the Student Ombudsman's consideration of the issues raised in the appeal.

(71) In considering the appeal the Student Ombudsman will, where necessary in order to decide the appeal fairly and appropriately:

  1. give the student an opportunity to be heard and advise the student of procedures and time requirements;
  2. invite any staff member or student, to provide evidence in person or otherwise, that may assist the review;
  3. provide both the student and the person against whose decision the student is appealing with access to information considered by the Student Ombudsman in deciding the appeal;
  4. permit the student to nominate staff or students to be invited to speak with the Student Ombudsman in support of their case;
  5. allow the student to be accompanied by a person who may lend support but not address the Student Ombudsman on behalf of the student.

(72) In considering the appeal the Student Ombudsman will:

  1. keep an adequate record of the evidence; and
  2. with the consent of the student, allow any member of the university with sufficient justification to have access to that record.

Conciliation

(73) The Student Ombudsman may conciliate the matter in order to clarify the issues with the student and suggest possible directions for resolution of the student’s matter.

(74) The Student Ombudsman may, with the student's consent:

  1. refer the student to another person, or student representative body, who can provide relevant advice or assistance with the aim of resolving the student’s matter; and/or
  2. facilitate negotiation of the matter between the parties, with the aim of achieving a conciliated outcome that is acceptable to both parties.

Deciding an Outcome

(75) After examining the relevant documentation and, where necessary, speaking to the student and other relevant parties, the Student Ombudsman may:

  1. decline the appeal, outline the rationale for their decision to the student and take no further action;
  2. uphold an appeal, outline the rationale for their decision to the student and recommend remedial action; or
  3. facilitate a conciliated outcome in accordance with clasue 73 to 74.

(76) If an appeal is upheld the Student Ombudsman may recommend remedial action to be taken and, with regard to the relevant university policy, forward this recommendation to the delegated authority for approval.

(77) Where the Student Ombudsman recommends remedial action, they must notify the Faculty Designate and the relevant parties to the appeal, in writing, of that decision.

(78) The Student Ombudsman must notify the student, in writing, of the final decision regarding their appeal, including reasons for the decision, and of the student's right to appeal to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) under Stage 3 if they believe that there are grounds for appeal as specified at clause 80.

Appeal of a Stage 2 outcome

(79) Where a student is not satisfied with the outcome of Stage 2 appeal, the student may appeal, in writing, to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) within ten (10) business days of the date of the response from the Student Ombudsman, on the grounds that:

  1. the faculty or the Student Ombudsman has not acted in accordance with the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy or these Procedures in the handling of the case at Stage 1a, Stage 1b or Stage 2 of the process. This is also known as ‘providing procedural fairness’;
  2. relevant new and substantial information, that was not previously considered, is now available.

(80) The appeal must:

  1. State, in full, the reasons for the appeal; and
  2. include any relevant documentary evidence to support the appeal.
Top of Page

Section 16 - Stage 3 – Appeal to Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life)

(81) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) will decide an outcome for a Stage 3 appeal within ten (10) business days of having received the appeal.

(82) If the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) has had prior involvement in the matter, or is unable to review the appeal in the time frame provided for in clause 81, or if a conflict of interest exists, they will nominate an impartial and senior delegate to decide the outcome of the Stage 3 appeal.

(83) In the investigation of an appeal, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life), or delegate as per clause 82, may:

  1. ask any staff member to review the appeal, with regard to the principle of confidentiality, and provide advice in relation to the subject matter of the appeal, that may assist in the investigation;
  2. give the student concerned an opportunity to be heard and advise the student of procedures and time requirements;
  3. invite any staff member or student, that may assist in the review, to attend the meeting and advise such persons of procedures and time requirements;
  4. permit the student to nominate staff or students to be invited to appear in support of the appeal, and/or
  5. allow the student to be accompanied by a person who may lend support but who shall not be permitted to address the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate.

Decision and Outcome

(84) After examining the relevant documentation and, where necessary, speaking to the student and other relevant parties, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate may:

  1. decline the appeal on the basis that there are insufficient grounds and/or insufficient evidence as per clause 79-80;
  2. uphold the appeal on the basis that the student has demonstrated sufficient grounds for their appeal and take appropriate action in accordance with clause 85-87.

(85) If an appeal is upheld the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate may recommend remedial action be taken and, with regard to the relevant university policy, forward this recommendation to the delegated authority for approval.

(86) Where the the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate recommends remedial action they must notify the Student Ombudsman and relevant parties to the appeal, in writing, of that decision.

(87) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate will direct nominated staff to take action as required and nominated staff will report back to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) on completion.

(88) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate must notify the student of their decision on the appeal and the timeframe for any recommended remedial action, within ten (10) business days.

(89) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate must keep an adequate record of their investigation, the evidence, their decision and any remedial action that was taken.

Top of Page

Section 17 - Record Keeping

(90) All records must be maintained in accordance with the Records Management Policy.

Top of Page

Section 18 - Roles and Responsibilities

(91) The University has a responsibility to:

  1. ensure that these Procedures are accessible and communicated to all staff and students;
  2. ensure that these Procedures are implemented and applied consistently across all faculties and academic units; and
  3. promote best practice in resolving requests for the review of a mark or grade and academic decisions.

(92) Students and staff involved in the review and appeals process have a responsibility to follow the requirements of these Procedures and the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy.

Top of Page

Section 19 - Definitions

Word/Term Definition
Academic consideration Academic consideration is intended to help minimise the impact of compassionate, compelling or extenuating circumstances beyond a student’s control, which significantly impair a student’s ability to complete an assessment task on or by the due date as stipulated in the Subject Outline; or which affects academic progress in a subject relevant to their course of study. Academic consideration may be granted on the basis of compassionate, compelling circumstances and/or extenuating circumstances.
Academic decision A decision made by a member of University staff or a University committee, normally under the University's rules or policy, which affects a student's academic progress in relation to their coursework studies or research candidature.
Academic matter A matter relating to the policy or processes that govern a student’s academic experience at the university. Academic matters are usually described in the following policies and procedures:
Code of Practice - Responsible Conduct of Research;
Code Of Practice - Work Integrated Learning (Professional Experience)
Coursework Rules;
Credit for Prior Learning Policy;
Higher Degree Research (HDR) Award Rules;
HDR Supervision and Resources Procedures;
HDR Thesis Preparation, Submission and Examination Procedure;
Honours Policy;
Standards for the Finalisation of Student Results;
Student Academic Consideration Policy;
Supplementary Assessment Procedure;
Teaching and Assessment: Assessment and Feedback Policy;
Teaching and Assessment - Code of Practice - Teaching;
Teaching and Assessment: Subject Delivery Policy.
Academic misconduct Conduct of a student when undertaking the preparation, presentation or submission of coursework, or during the course of undertaking research, that is in breach of:
Academic Integrity Policy,
Research Misconduct and Complaints Management Policy,
Code of Practice - Responsible Conduct of Research,
Faculty/unit requirements,
Subject Outlines, or
Other University policy documents or requirements setting out student academic requirements.
Academic progress Successful completion of subjects towards a degree within established time limits.
Academic Unit Also known as a School, Unit, Program or Discipline.
Assessment task An activity which a student is required to complete to provide a basis for an official record of achievement or certification of competence in a subject (e.g. examination, test, take-home examination, quiz, assignment, essay, laboratory report, demonstration, folio of creative work, performance, written or oral presentation, participation, simulation, placement report).
Collaborative Delivery Partner Another institution or organisation (typically another higher education provider) with which the University has a partnership arrangement, in accordance with the Collaborative Delivery of a UOW Course Policy.
Conflict of interest Exists where there is a divergence between the individual interests of a staff member and their professional obligation to the University such that an independent observer might reasonably question whether the professional actions or decisions of that person are influenced by their own interests or are for their own benefit. It should be noted that enmity as well as friendship can give rise to perceptions of a conflict of interest and similarly that detriment to a third party can give rise to a conflict of interest just as much as benefit to a third party. A conflict of interest includes an actual, perceived or potential conflict of interest.
Course A program of study consisting of a combination of subjects and other requirements, whether leading to a specific higher education award or not.
Deferred assessment An assessment task taken by an eligible student as a result of a student’s application for academic consideration, as approved by the relevant Subject Coordinator.
Faculty Assessment Committee (FAC) The Faculty Assessment Committee, is responsible for the finalising student results, in accordance with the Standards for the Finalisation of Students Results.
General misconduct Conduct of a student that is not academic misconduct, and that is otherwise in breach of the following policy documents or requirements:
Campus Access and Order Rules;
IT Acceptable Use Policy and/or associated IT policies;
Library Code of Conduct;
Code of Practice – Student Professional Experience;
Student Conduct in Residences Policy;
University Rules, Codes, Policies, Guidelines, Procedures or requirements; or
Faculty and/or academic unit requirements.
Good faith To act honestly and with propriety.
Higher Degree Research (HDR) candidate A student enrolled in a Doctorate or Research Masters at UOW and whose body of work is incomplete or is under examination.
Honours Coordinator A member of academic staff who is responsible for the operation of an Honours Degree and/or the coordination of Honours Projects.
Honours Project A component of study within the Honours Degree that involves project work and/or a piece of research and scholarship with some independence and that is discipline specific, inter-disciplinary or joint.
Maladministration A term used by the NSW Ombudsman to describe conduct that involves an action or inaction of a serious nature that is: contrary to law; unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; based wholly or partly on improper motives; or is otherwise wrongful. The Ombudsman Act 1974 section 26 (1) (NSW Government Legislation) elaborates upon this definition. The NSW Ombudsman also provides a “What is Maladministration” factsheet.
Natural justice Principles that ensure that decision-making is fair and reasonable. These involve decision-makers informing people of the case against them or their interests, giving them a right to be heard, not having a personal interest in the outcome, and acting only on the basis of logically probative evidence.
Offshore location A location that is outside of Australia at which a University of Wollongong course is offered.
Policy document University Rules, Policies, Standards, Codes of conduct, Codes of practice, Procedures and Guidelines.
Prior learning Learning that has taken place prior to admission to a program of the University or prior to undertaking a relevant component of a program.
Procedural fairness Refers to a decision-maker using a fair and proper procedure, that applies the principles of natural justice, when making a decision.
Reasonable adjustment A measure or action (or a group of measures or actions) taken by an education provider that has the effect of assisting students with disability to access and participate in Higher Education on the same basis as students without disability.
Record Records are a part of and result from business activities and provide evidence of those activities. Any document or other source of information compiled, recorded or stored in written form or on film, or by electronic process, or in any other manner or by any other means State Records Act 1998. Records may include, but are not limited to, any staff member’s paper based records, emails, or electronic documents stored at UOW or on UOW equipment. A record does not include personal and/or private documents that are not part of official UOW business records.
Research misconduct A serious breach, which is also intentional or reckless or negligent, of the Australian Research Council / National Health and Medical Research Council’s Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.
Research Progress Review A review of an HDR candidate’s progress that occurs at various stages throughout their candidature and includes Research Proposal Reviews, Faculty progress reviews and Annual Progress Reports.
Review of mark or grade Reconsideration given to a mark or grade for an assessment task in a coursework subject, or for a final mark and grade in a coursework subject.
Staff All people employed by the University including conjoint appointments, whether on continuing, permanent, fixed term, casual or cadet or traineeship basis.
Student A person enrolled in a University of Wollongong course or unit of study, whether located onshore, offshore or online.
Subject A self-contained unit of study identified by a unique code.
Subject Coordinator An academic staff member with nominated responsibility for a subject.
Supplementary assessment An additional assessment task, approved and offered by a Faculty Assessment Committee, which may be undertaken taken by a student in order to pass the subject.
Support person A person, other than a legal representative, who may provide support to a student in relation to an academic review and any subsequent appeal, A support person can include a member of UOW staff such as a Student Support Advisor or a Student Advocacy Officer.
Thesis A written piece of work which reports on the substantive research undertaken during the course of a student’s candidature.
University The campuses, facilities, operations, resources, staff and services of the University of Wollongong.
University Senior Executive Vice-Chancellor and President
Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor;
Deputy Vice-Chancellor;
Chief Operating Officer and Vice-President Operations;
Pro Vice-Chancellor.
Top of Page

Section 20 - Schedule 1: Offshore Students and the Application of Procedures at a Collaborative Delivery Partner Institution

Definitions

(93) A collaborative delivery partner is a higher education provider operating within Australia or overseas (other than the University of Wollongong Dubai - UOWD) with which UOW has an agreement for the delivery of UOW courses in conjunction with that provider, under a formal collaborative delivery agreement.

(94) An offshore student refers to a person enrolled in a course or program offered by the University of Wollongong, in conjunction with a collaborative delivery partner, located at a campus outside of Australia.

Application

(95) Where an offshore student is enrolled in a UOW coursework program, these Procedures apply with the modifications set out in this Schedule.

Procedural Modifications

(96) The faculty who owns the course in which the student is enrolled will designate staff, either in the course owning faculty or at the collaborative delivery partner institution, to perform the roles specified in this policy as provide for in the table below.

Purpose / Stage UOW Onshore Role Equivalent Roles for Offshore
Informal consultation and feedback Subject Coordinator UOW Subject Coordinator (or member of teaching team)
  1. Stage 1a (formal review)
  1. Head of School or nominee
ASSH UOW Discipline Leader or offshore APD for the relevant offshore course.
    BAL UOW Discipline Leader/Program Leader for the relevant offshore course. May consult with relevant UOW Academic Program Director (APD).
    EIS UOW Academic Program Director (APD) for each partner institution.
    SMAH UOW Dubai only. Refer to relevant UOW Dubai policy.
  1. Stage 1b (formal appeal)
  1. Faculty Designate
ASSH Associate Dean Education with outcome copied to Associate Dean International.
BAL Associate Dean International with outcome copied to Associate Dean Education.
EIS Associate Deans Education with outcome copied to Associate Deans International.
SMAH UOW Dubai only. Refer to relevant UOW Dubai policy.
Stage 2 (formal appeal) Student Ombudsman UOW Student Ombudsman
The relevant offshore partner must provide support for the student with regard to Schedule 1.4 above.
Stage 3 (formal appeal) Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life)
The relevant offshore partner must provide support for the student with regard to Schedule 1.4 above.

(97) With regard to the roles assigned in section 4 of this Schedule, a Stage 1a review or Stage 1b appeal to the faculty will be managed in accordance with sections 13 and 14 of these Procedures.

(98) A Stage 2 appeal to the Student Ombudsman will be managed in accordance with section 15 of these Procedures.

(99) A Stage 3 appeal to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) will be managed in accordance with section 16 of these Procedures.

(100) Where a student is engaged in an appeal, the offshore partner institution is responsible for providing appropriate support to the student to enable fair and equitable access to support services and the technical infrastructure required for conducting meetings and interviews as per the Guidelines for Supporting Offshore Student Reviews and Appeals.

(101) A member of staff of UOW or the collaborative delivery partner may be present to assist the student at the collaborative delivery partner’s campus. This is in addition to the student’s right to nominate their own support person in accordance with these Procedures.

Top of Page

Section 21 - Schedule 2: Flowcharts

(102) Review of academic decisions flowchart