MODULE HANDBOOK
IATL hosts a number of cross-faculty modules – which means that students from every
Department in the University, whose Department permits it, may take one or more IATL
modules. The handbook aims to offer guidance to students working on IATL modules in
terms of assessment, attendance, and the relationship of the work students do with us to
their home Department.
Absence from Seminar Policy
Attendance at seminars is monitored on a termly basis. There is no official sanction for
failing to attend seminars, but the Students’ home department will receive copies of each
student’s attendance record.
Administration
Assessment
There will be a variety of forms of assessment on IATL modules
ESSAYS
You will be very likely to be required to write essays on IATL modules. Most
essays will be assessed (or summative) pieces of work, with marks counting
towards your final grade. Essays are important as they help you to develop your
skills and improve your performance.
Style and Presentation Guidelines
Essays can be written in the style that your Department favours. English and
Comparative Literary Studies use, for example, either MLA (Modern Languages
Association) conventions or the MHRA (Modern Humanities Research Association)
conventions. Be self consistent and use the same system throughout the piece of
work being submitted. Handwritten assignments cannot be accepted. Computers
for students use are available in the work areas in the Library and the Learning Grid.
You are required to keep a back-up of your work and an electronic copy of any
assignments you submit to the department. In the event of computer problems,
please contact the IT Services Helpdesk on ext. 73737.
1
Please Note: Computer problems are not an acceptable reason for non/late
submission of assessed work. Extra-Curricular commitments are not valid reasons
for requesting an extension to an assessed essay deadline.
You should observe the following presentation guidelines for all essays:




Line spacing should be 1.5 or double,
Use 12-point type, with wide margins for comments
The pages of your essay should be stapled together
Your Student ID number should be included in the header or footer on each
page of your essay. YOUR NAME SHOULD ONLY APPEAR ON THE COVER SHEET
WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE ESSAY BUT NOT ON THE PAGES OF THE ESSAY
ITSELF.
Bibliography, Footnotes and Endnotes
All assessed essays and dissertations should have a bibliography of works consulted
and cited. There should be correct and full referencing of sources either as in-text
citation, as footnotes or as endnotes. The purpose of these references is:



To document direct quotation
To credit ideas taken from a primary or secondary source (including single
words, phrases and paraphrases)
To give your reader sufficient information to track your quotation back to its
source and to locate its full text.
The key essentials of citation are: clarity, brevity, consistency and completeness.
Word-length
The word-length of your essay includes quotations and excludes footnotes, endnotes
and the bibliography. Tutors will allow a discretionary 10% shortfall or extension of
the word length, however they will not take into account anything which is written
after the 10% extension. This could have severe repercussions on your mark, as your
concluding paragraphs will not be read, so make sure that your work does not
exceed the maximum word length allowed. If your work does exceed the maximum
word length allowed, the following penalties will be given:



10-15% over/under 5 points will be deducted from the mark for the
essay
15-50% over/under 10 points will be deducted from the mark for the
essay
More than 50% over/under 20 points will be deducted from the mark
for the essay
2
Please also note that if your work does not meet the requirements of the rubric,
then your essay may lose up to 20 marks.
Submission
One hard copy of your essay must be submitted to the IATL Office by 12noon on the
stipulated deadline. Essays submitted by email or fax will not be accepted. Please
submit one copy of your essay: this copy will be marked and returned to you. When
you submit your essay remember to complete and attach a cover sheet. Cover
sheets are available both online and from the IATL office. You should fill in all fields
on this sheet, and you must sign the plagiarism declaration. Essays cannot be
accepted without a completed and signed coversheet.
Online Submission
In addition to the hard copy you MUST also submit your essay in an electronic
format using the department’s online submission system, the correct page for this
can be found at:
The deadline for submitting the electronic copy of your essay is 12 noon on the same
day as the hard copy. Full instructions on how to make an electronic submission are
online. Please remember you have not completed your submission until you have
handed in your hard copy AND uploaded your essay via the e-submission system.
Failure to do either by the specified deadline will mean that your essay is LATE.
Extensions
Extensions to assessed essay deadlines may be granted only under specific
circumstances which are laid down in the University’s conventions:
Requests for extensions to a published deadline may only be granted in those cases
where a student with appropriately documented medical or compassionate grounds
makes the request before the deadline has passed.
To apply for an extension please follow the procedure outlined in your home
Department.
Return of Essays
The department aims to return essays to students four weeks after submission. You
should arrange a convenient time with your tutor to collect and gain feedback on
your essay. All Honours assessed essays are marked anonymously by two markers.
All marks are provisional until they are approved by the Examination Board of your
home Department and may be subject to change.
ASSESSED ESSAY DEADLINES ARE 12 NOON ON TUESDAYS.
5 MARKS PER DAY (INCLUDING WEEKENDS) WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM LATE ESSAYS
WHERE AN EXTENSION HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED
3
BRIEFING NOTE FOR STUDENTS ON THE 17 POINT MARK SCALE
Your work will be marked using the University’s 17 point marking scale.
This scale has 17 mark (or grade) points on it; each of which falls into one of the five
classes of performance which correspond to the overall degree classification. The
University uses these classes of performance for all of its undergraduate modules.





70-100 First Class
60-69 Second Class, Upper Division (also referred to as "Upper Second" or "2.1")
50-59 Second Class, Lower Division (also referred to as "Lower Second" or "2.2")
40-49 Third Class
0-39 Fail
The University has generic descriptors for work which is given a mark that falls within
the range(s) of marks in each to the class. So, there is a description for work in the
Upper Second class range, another for work in the Lower Second class range etc.
The mark which each piece of your work will be given is dependent upon the extent
to which the work satisfies the elements in the generic descriptors.
For the purposes of the 17 point mark scale, each of the five classes is further
subdivided into the positions shown in the table below (high 2.1, mid 2.1 etc). One of
the 17 mark points is assigned to each of the subdivisions. The person marking your
work will consider your work alongside the generic criteria to decide which class of
performance the work falls into. The marker will then determine the extent to which
your work meets the criteria in order to arrive at a judgment about the position
(high, mid, low) within the class. The work will be awarded the mark assigned to the
relevant position in the class.
If a module has more than one “unit” (or piece) of assessment, (e.g. the assessment
comprises two assessed essays), the mark for each unit is determined using the 17
point mark scale and then the marks are averaged, taking account of the units”
respective weightings, in order to produce the module result. This is expressed as a
percentage (and therefore may be any number up to 100 and so is not limited to one
of the 17 marks on the scale).
The tables attached show each class of degree (including the subdivisions) and the
marks assigned to each position in the class on the 17 point mark scale, alongside
the University’s generic descriptors for work in the class.
FIRST CLASS
Class Mark Point Generic University Descriptor
Excellent 1st: 96
Exceptional command of the subject, including material which ranges well beyond
4
that covered in lectures/classes. Work of exceptional insight, bringing new
perspectives to bear on the materials, or developing new knowledge or
techniques. Achieves or is close to publishable standard.
High 1st: 89
Very high quality work, with full understanding of the subject matter. Work that
demonstrates intellectual maturity, and is perceptive with highly developed
organisation. An ambitious project carried out successfully, with sophisticated
handling of primary and secondary material, reasoned, analytical argument.
Some degree of originality, independent research and thought.
Mid 1st: 81
Low 1st: 74
SECOND CLASS: DIVISION I (UPPER SECOND)
Class Mark Point Generic University Descriptor
High 2.1 : 68
Highly competent in organisation and presentation, evidence of individual
research; appropriate and intelligent use of primary and secondary material, good
understanding of subject matter allied with perceptive analysis.
Mid 2.1: 65
Low 2.1: 62
SECOND CLASS: DIVISION II (LOWER SECOND)
Class Mark Point Generic University Descriptor
High 2.2: 58
Conscientious work, attentive to subject matter and title/task set; a focused
response to the task demonstrating good knowledge, balanced more towards the
descriptive than the analytical. Good knowledge, reasonable understanding of
material and task. Descriptive rather than analytical.
Mid 2.2: 55
Low 2.2: 52
THIRD CLASS
5
Class Mark Point Generic University Descriptor
High 3rd: 48
Some relevant knowledge, some accurate repetition of lecture/class notes/work.
Partial or pedestrian description.
Mid 3rd: 45
Low 3rd: 42
FAIL CLASS
Class Mark Point Generic University Descriptor
High Fail (near miss): 38
Work does not meet standards required for the appropriate stage of an Honours
degree, albeit with some basic understanding of relevant concepts and
techniques.
Fail: 25
Ineptitude in knowledge, structure, academic/professional practice. Failure or
inability to answer the question/respond to the task. No evidence of basic
understanding of relevant concepts/techniques.
Low Fail: 12-Zero 0
Work of no merit OR absent work not submitted, penalty in some misconduct
cases.
EXAMINATIONS
The examination period starts in week 5 of term 3 and finishes in week 9. The
examination timetable is published at the beginning of term 3. Most examinations
will be invigilated unseen papers; however a few modules opt for a seen paper.
Details of these will be given to you by the tutor. Seen exam papers will be available
21 days before the examination. Papers can either be collected from the IATL
Reception during normal opening hours, or accessed online at
Rubrics for examinations will be published on the noticeboard in IATL from
week 2 onwards. Please note: You will be penalised up to 20 marks from your overall
exam mark if it is evident that you are in violation of the rubric of the exam paper.
For details of Materials Allowed in Examinations, please refer to the Regulation A,
which can be found in the University’s Senate Examination and Degree Conventions
at the following address:
6
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/academicoffice/quality/categories/examinatio
ns/senateexamanddegreeconvs
Past examination papers are available at www2.warwick.ac.uk/go/pastpapers on the
University’s website.
Examination Feedback
IATL does not return examination scripts to students.
It is critical that every piece of work that you submit is your own work. Cheating in a
University test, which includes assessed essays and dissertations, is not tolerated by
either the University or IATL . If you do cheat, your work may be awarded a mark of
0%. Cheating can be defined in a number of ways: the University’s regulations
provide the following definition: ‘In these regulations ‘cheating’ means an attempt
to benefit oneself, or another, by deceit or fraud. This shall include deliberately
reproducing the work of another person or persons without proper
acknowledgment.’ Regulation 11, University Calendar.
When you submit an assessed essay you must sign the following declaration on the
cover sheet: “I am aware of the Department’s notes on plagiarism and of Regulation
11B in the University Calendar concerning cheating in a University test. The attached
work submitted for a University test is my own.” If it is subsequently found that the
work is not your own or that you have not accurately acknowledged any sources,
you risk being awarded a mark of 0%.
Plagiarism
What is it? It is a form of cheating. It is the use of another person‟s work without
acknowledgement. It may include direct transcriptions of text or the presentation of
ideas from a source as your own. You must always acknowledge your sources,
making appropriate use of citation and bibliographies.
Quotations must always be acknowledged with a specific page reference every time
they occur.
Direct quotations must be placed in quotation marks.
An idea taken from a secondary source must be given a detailed reference.
It is not acceptable to just cite a source in the bibliography; if you are using
quotations or ideas from a specific source you must cite the reference accurately.
What could happen?
If a tutor suspects plagiarism they will notify the Head of Department. Having
examined the work, the Director of IATL may impose a mark of 0%. If this happens, it
can have serious consequences for your work: most essays count for 50% of your
7
module mark. If you are a second-year or third-year student your case may be
considered by a Senate
Disciplinary Committee. If plagiarism is detected in one essay, all other essays may
be re-examined for evidence of plagiarism. The University has a range of plagiarism
software that can be used to do this.
How to avoid it
Very few students are deliberately dishonest, but poor scholarly practice can lead
them to commit plagiarism. You should always provide appropriate references.
Whilst it is important to engage with other people’s ideas, you must credit their
work. Sources that need citing include on-line sources. If you consult the internet
you need to provide the URL and state the date on which you accessed it.
Advice on good scholarly practice can be found in most books on academic writing.
We recommend Le Pan and Babington, The Broadview Guide to Writing, 3rd
edition, which is available from the University Bookshop. Alternatively, consult
www.bedfordstmartins.com/online/citex.html.
REFLECTIVE JOURNALS
What is a reflective journal?
A reflective journal is an account of your work in progress, but more essentially an
opportunity for reflection on the learning experience. It should provide you with a
means of engaging critically and analytically with the journey made in planning and
the delivery of the final assessed workshop. For example, did you experience
something in one of the training weekends and then try it out?
What does a reflective journal look like?
There is no right or wrong way of presenting your journal, as this should take
account of personal experience, preferred learning style and your independent
research focus. Some journals are electronic (more like video or written blogs), and
some take a diary form with visual & written material cut and pasted (literally) into
‘scrapbooks’.
You should however:




Write in the first person.
Be mindful that this journal is a public document and therefore it is important
to consider the reader as you write. They were not with you on this learning
journey so some context is important.
Content is more important than presentation.
Process & immediacy are the key words.
Your journal will be enhanced by evidence of:
8









Progression through a learning journey.
Evaluation of new approaches experienced in the period of independent
study.
Teasing out assumptions underpinning practice.
Critical evaluation of your own practice.
Analysis of key or ‘critical’ moments from independent study, whether
positive or negative, and what was learnt from them.
Sensitivity torelationships with other members of the group.
Taking a position and making an argument from your learning experience.
Relevant reading.
New understandings made from: reading, planning and or delivery,
collaborative activities, the exam, the viva, and the questioning of previous
assumptions.
How will your reflective journal be assessed?
Ask yourself is there evidence of:
1. Effective organisation and presentation of material and or evidence.
2. Academic reading used in a relevant way to inform, support and or shape
your reflections.
3. Critical engagement with, rather than description of, the creation of your
piece, or of the term’s work; your own process; and the process of others.
4. Evaluation of the limitations/potential of the work undertaken.
5. Immediacy – did you reflect every time you met for discussions/rehearsals; or
after each seminar?
6. The 17-point scale criteria will broadly apply. Please see above.
A very good journal will be analytical rather than descriptive; selective rather than
comprehensive; based in evidence and references to wider reading; critical and
cautious in the claims made; personal but not rhetorical.
CAT Points
These work the same way in IATL as anywhere else and are directly credited to your degree.
Appendix A
SEMINAR TIMES 2011/12
Module Day & Time Location
Appendix B
9
Module A B C D
A = 100% Assessed
B = 100% Examined
C = 50% Assessed/50% Examined
D = 60% Examined/40% Assessed
Appendix C
Essay Deadlines 2012-13
Appendix D
Regulation 11b: Procedure to be Adopted in the Event of Suspected Cheating in a
University Test.
B) Essays, Dissertations, Reports and Other Assessed Work, not Undertaken under
Examination Conditions as Laid Down in the University Regulations for the Invigilation of
Examinations
(1) Where there is suspicion that a candidate or former candidate has reproduced in a
University assessment work of another person or persons without proper
acknowledgement, the Head(s) of the Department (or the Head's authorised deputy)
responsible for the module(s) concerned shall be consulted. This procedure shall also apply
to work formally submitted by candidates for a research degree as part of the annual review
or upgrade process.
(2) If the Head of the Department (or his/her authorised deputy) considers that an offence
may have occurred according to the definition set out in the University Regulations or
Faculty or departmental instructions, he/she shall (other than in the circumstances set out
in paragraphs (3) and (4) below)either:
(a) Make a full report to the Academic Registrar, thereby invoking the procedures set out in
paragraphs (5)-(9) below; or
(b) Exercise his/her discretion to pursue the matter without reference to an Investigating
Committee, in which case he/she shall inform the student of the allegation and provide the
student with reasonable opportunity to make representations on his/her own behalf, before
determining whether an offence has occurred and, if so, determining the appropriate
penalty, which shall not exceed a mark of zero in the piece of work to which the offence
relates (with or without the opportunity to resubmit or undertake a further assessment).
The student, having been informed of the penalty, may choose either: (i) to accept the
penalty as a final decision in which case a report of the circumstances of the case and
level of penalty exacted shall be lodged by the Head (or his/her authorised deputy) with the
Secretary of the appropriate Board of Examiners; or (ii) request, within ten days of being
informed by the Head of Department of the penalty, that the matter is considered by an
Investigating Committee, thereby invoking procedures (5)-(9) below, whereupon the Head
(or his/her authorised deputy) shall make a report to the Academic Registrar. In
exceptional circumstances the Head of Department may consider a request submitted after
ten days.
10
(3) In the event that the examiners for a higher degree by research suspect a candidate of
cheating, the examination process shall be stopped. The internal examiner or examination
advisor shall inform the Head of Department of the allegation. The Head of Department
shall make a full report to the Academic Registrar, thus invoking the procedures set out in
paragraphs (5)-(9) below.
(4) Where the alleged offence relates to an assessment which contributed to the previous
approval of an academic award or honour to the candidate, the Head of Department (or
his/her authorised deputy) shall make a full report to the Academic Registrar, thus invoking
the procedure set out in paragraphs (5)-(9) below.
(5) In all cases where a report has been submitted by the Head of Department (or his/her
authorised deputy) to the Academic Registrar, the Head (or his/her authorised deputy) shall
warn the student that this report has been made, and inform him/her that he/she may
make a written statement to be submitted to the Academic Registrar before the meeting of
an Investigating Committee. The student shall be provided by the Academic Registrar with a
statement of the allegations made against him/her, together with copies of any supporting
evidence, at least five days before the meeting of the Investigating Committee.
(6) The reports shall be considered by an Investigating Committee of the Senate, whose
membership shall be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor (or his nominee) and shall be chaired
by the Chair of a Faculty Board or the Chair of a Faculty Undergraduate or Graduate Studies
Committee (as appropriate) other than that of the student's faculty (or his/her nominee),
together with not fewer than two members drawn from a panel of up to twenty members
appointed by the Senate on the recommendation of the Faculty Boards (up to five nominees
per faculty, panel members to serve for a period of three years). The Investigating
Committee shall not include any member of the student's department. In considering
the case the Investigating Committee shall take into account the Faculty and/or
departmental instructions in relation to assessed work as well as the definitions in relation
to cheating set out in University Regulations. The Head(s) of the Department(s) responsible
for the module(s) concerned (or his/her authorised deputy) shall present the case and shall
have a right to call witnesses to appear before the Committee. The Chair of the appropriate
Examiners' Board (or his/her authorised deputy where the Chair of the Examiners' Board is
the Head of the Department responsible for the module(s) concerned) shall be in
attendance in an advisory capacity.
(7) If he/she wishes, the student shall have the right to appear before the Investigating
Committee, and he/she may invite any one other person to attend the Committee. The
name and status of any person accompanying the student must be notified to the Chair of
the Investigating Committee via the Academic Registrar in advance of the meeting. The
student shall also have the right to request any witnesses to appear before the Committee
and/or to provide the Committee with a written statement prior to its meeting.
(8) If the Investigating Committee is not satisfied that an offence has taken place, the
student shall be informed and the matter shall end there. The Chair of the Investigating
Committee may also take Chair's action to dismiss a case prior to any committee meeting of
s/he judges that there is no case to answer.
(9) If the Investigating Committee is satisfied that an offence has taken place it shall:
(a) determine the penalty and inform the secretary of the appropriate Board of Examiners
and the student accordingly. The maximum penalty shall not normally exceed a mark of zero
in that unit of study* in which the piece of work is being assessed (with or without the
opportunity to resubmit or undertake a further assessment) but in appropriate cases the
11
Committee shall have the power to impose a more severe penalty, it being understood that
such a penalty would be imposed without prejudice to the provisions of the Disciplinary
Regulations. The Investigating Committee may refer cases it considers appropriate to the
University Discipline Committee, sanctions available to the Discipline Committee including
termination of the student's registration, or (b) where the offence relates to an assessment
which contributed to the previous approval of an academic award or honour to the
candidate, make such recommendations to the Senate (or to the Senate Steering
Committee acting on the Senate's behalf) to take such action under University
Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations as it may consider appropriate (including that the
previous academic award or honour to the candidate should be revoked).
(10) (a) The student shall have the right to appeal against either the decision of the
Investigating Committee or the penalty, to an appeal committee appointed by the ViceChancellor (or his nominee), consisting of a Pro-Vice-Chancellor (as Chair) together with no
fewer than two of the Chairs of the Faculty Boards or two of the Chairs of the Faculty
Undergraduate or Graduate Studies Committees, as appropriate (or their nominees). No
member of the relevant Investigating Committee shall also be a member of the appeal
committee. Any appeal must be submitted in writing to the Academic Registrar within ten
days. of the notification of the Investigating Committee’s decision to the student.
(b) The appeal committee will consider appeals from students made on the following
grounds: (i) that there was a material irregularity or failure in procedure in the conduct of
the original hearing before the Investigating Committee; (ii) that relevant evidence has
come to light which the appellant was unable to present to the Investigating Committee at
the original hearing; (iii) that in light of new evidence the penalty imposed by the
Investigating Committee is excessive in relation to the offence committed.
(c) Appeals shall be considered initially by the Chair of the appeal committee in consultation
with one other member of the committee to establish that a prima facie case for appeal
exists. Appeals shall not be considered where, in the opinion of the Chair and the consulted
member of the appeal committee, the appellant has failed to bring the appeal within any of
the grounds listed under (b)(i) - (iii) above.
(d) In considering any appeal the appeal committee shall take into account the definitions in
relation to cheating set out in the University Regulations, and, if relevant, the Faculty and/or
departmental instructions in relation to assessed work.
(e) If he/she wishes, the appellant shall have the right to appear before the appeal
committee, and he/she may invite any one other person to attend the committee. The
name and status of any person accompanying the student must be notified to the Chair of
the committee via the Academic Registrar in advance of the meeting.
(f) The Head(s) of the Department(s) responsible for the module(s) concerned (or his/her
authorised deputy) shall be at the committee and shall be invited to present a response to
the appeal.
(g) If required, the Chair of the Investigating Committee shall be asked to attend the appeal
committee to answer any questions concerning the Investigating Committee’s original
decision, but shall attend for this purpose only and shall not remain present throughout the
appeal hearing.
(h) The appeal committee shall have power to confirm or to set aside the decision of the
Investigating Committee, or to set aside or vary the penalty imposed by the Investigating
Committee. The decisions of the appeal committee shall be final and shall be communicated
to the secretary of the appropriate Board of Examiners.
12
(11) In cases where cheating is proven and the circumstances are such that it is appropriate
for the University to inform a regulatory body for the student's intended profession of the
finding, the Academic Registrar shall be responsible for informing the regulatory body.
*A unit of study is defined as that part of a student work load, in a given year, which is
allocated an approved separate examination weighting by the appropriate body.
Appendix E
Student Appeals Process
8.12 Regulations Governing Appeals Relating to Decisions of Final-year Undergraduate
Board of Examiners
The regulations governing the students’ own Departments will apply here.
Appendix F
Health and Safety Policy
The Institute for Advanced Teaching and Learning (IATL) takes seriously its provision for the
safety and welfare of its students. The Institute’s Health and Safety Policy and First Aid
Contacts are posted on the noticeboard outside the IATL General Office (G.03 Millburn
House).
IATL’s Health and Safety Officer is Dr Susan Brock, ext. 50067.
Fire Evacuation
In the case of a fire alarm, you are expected to leave the building quickly and quietly.
The fire assembly point for Millburn House is in the visitors car park near the Millburn Hill
Road entrance. Failure to evacuate the building during a fire alarm may lead to disciplinary
action.
If you have a disability that may impede your evacuation from the building you can request
that IATL’s Health and Safety Officer prepares a personalised evacuation plan for you.
In the event of fire, raise the alarm as quickly as possible and move to safety. There are two
fire wardens in IATL who will co-ordinate the evacuation. IATL’s Fire Wardens are Amy
Clarke, G.03 and Dr Susan Brock, G.01.
First Aid
In the case of an accident or injury in Millburn House please contact IATL’s first aider Adam
Cartwright who is based in G.03 Millburn House ext. 74736.
Security
13
If you cannot find any of the fire officers or first aider, you should contact Security on ext.
22222.
Further details of the University’s Health and Safety Policy can be found at
www.warwick.ac.uk/services/healthsafetywellbeing
Appendix G
Sexual and Racial Harassment
The University considers sexual or racial harassment to be totally unacceptable and offers
support to staff and students subjected to it. The University is also prepared to take
disciplinary action against offenders. Sexual harassment may be defined as verbal or
physical contact of a sexual nature which the perpetrator knows, or should have known, was
offensive to the victim. Such conduct may encompass displays of sexually suggestive
pictures, unwanted demands for sex and unwanted physical contact. Racial harassment may
be defined as behaviour that is offensive or intimidating to the recipient and would
be regarded as racial harassment by any reasonable person. Such conduct may range from
racist jokes and insults to physical threats. Confidential advice is available from the Head of
the Department, the Director of Undergraduate Studies, the Student Counselling Service, or
the Advice and Welfare Services Officer in the Student Union. A leaflet, Sexual and Racial
Harassment – Guidelines for Students is available from the Senior Tutor’s Office, University
House.
Appendix H
Equality
The University of Warwick strives to treat both employees and students with respect and
dignity, to treat them fairly with regards to all assessments, choices and procedures, and to
give them encouragement to reach their full potential. Therefore, the University strives to
treat all its members on the basis of merit and ability alone and aims to eliminate
unjustifiable discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, nationality, ethnic or national
origin, political beliefs, religious beliefs or practices, disability, marital status, family
circumstances, sexual orientation, spent criminal convictions, age or any other
inappropriate ground.
Appendix I
University of Warwick
IATL
Name: (CAPITALS)
Degree and Year:
Personal Tutor:
Are you using this form to: [please tick as applicable]
14
NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF YOUR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES (if so, complete section
A)
REQUEST SPECIAL EXAMINATION ARRANGEMENTS (if so, complete section B)
A. I wish to notify my Department of the following special circumstances, which are likely
to affect my performance in assessed work and / or examination:
B. I wish to apply for Special Examination arrangements.
I require: (tick as appropriate):
extra time
the use of a computer
to sit examinations in the department (rather than in the main examination rooms)
I enclose the following documentation in support of my case:
I give permission for these circumstances to be discussed by the Department‟s Special
Cases Committee. I understand that if the Special Cases Committee (which is made up of the
Head of Dept, Exams Secretary, DUGS, UG Secretary, External Examiners) makes a
recommendation to the Board of Examinations on the basis of these discussions, details of
my case will not be revealed to the full Board,
Signed:
Date:
15