We, the students of ENG1503 (Semester 1, 2026) at the University of South Africa, wish to raise our concern regarding the recent decision to exclude Assessment 2 from our final marks, as well as the subsequent communication indicating that Assessment 1 will also not be counted.
We fully support academic integrity and recognise the importance of maintaining high academic standards. However, we believe that the current decision does not sufficiently take into account the structure of the assignment, where all students were required to engage with the same topic, prescribed sources, and formatting. This inherently contributes to similarity scores and does not necessarily constitute academic misconduct.
Furthermore, no individual feedback, results, or formal assessment outcomes have been provided for either Assessment 1 or Assessment 2. This raises serious concerns about how such decisions were reached prior to the marking and proper review of our work.
We respectfully request:
* That all submissions be properly assessed on a case-by-case basis
* That clear justification and supporting documentation be provided for any decisions taken
* That the institutional policies and procedures applied in this matter be communicated transparently
* That students receive feedback and results to support their academic development
We remain committed to fairness, transparency, and academic integrity, and we believe that our work deserves to be evaluated accordingly.
We therefore respectfully request that this matter be reconsidered in a fair, transparent, and accountable manner.
We understand that the digital world presents new challenges in academia, and that these challenges are faced by universities globally. We support UNISA in its growth and development during this time. However, we ask that students are not excluded in this process of change.
We respectfully urge that honest and hardworking students are not left behind. Instead, take us along on this journey by ensuring that we are given a fair opportunity to be assessed and evaluated on our work. A fair and transparent assessment process is not only essential for students, but also contributes meaningfully to strengthening UNISA’s approach to the evolving digital landscape and the challenges that AI presents in academia.
-Nitanja Steyn and students at the University of South Africa
This is the email that was sent:
Topic:
Follow-up: Request for Clarification on Assessment Decisions (ENG1503)
Dear Dr T Nkhobo, Mr T Molefe and Professor K. Sevnarayan,
I hope you are well.
Following our class discussion on 14 May 2026, during which you indicated that further communication would take place via email, I would like to formally follow up on that undertaking.
During the session, I requested clarity and supporting documentation regarding the decisions taken in relation to Assessment 2. In particular, I would appreciate detailed information on:
- The process followed in reaching the decision to exclude Assessment 2
- The criteria and evidence used in relation to the Turnitin similarity scores
- The institutional policies, rules, or academic regulations on which this decision is based
In addition, we are now further surprised to understand that Assessment 1 will also not count towards our final marks, despite earlier communication indicating that it would. We would greatly appreciate clarification on this development, including the process followed and the basis for this decision.
Furthermore, communication today suggested that students could rely on Assessment 1 in place of the examination. What prevents a student from not writing the exam at all and relying on Assessment 1 marks?
Please provide clarity: During class on the 14th of May 2026, it was communicated that Assessment 1 would count for students who did not perform well in the exam, and if Assessment 1 was also not satisfactory, then Assessment 2 would count. Please confirm whether this understanding is correct. This reflects that inconsistent methods of evaluation are causing confusion, and we suggest that all students are assessed using the same system and on equal merit.
We understand that the digital world presents new challenges in academia, and that these challenges are faced by universities globally. We support UNISA in its growth and development during this time. However, we ask that students are not excluded in this process of change. We respectfully urge that honest and hardworking students are not left behind. Instead, take us along on this journey, allow us to contribute to shaping and strengthening UNISA’s approach to the evolving digital landscape and the challenges that AI presents in academia.
I would also like to note that several other students and I, with whom I am in contact (via my WhatsApp community for ENG1503), are currently awaiting this information. As discussed, we trust that this clarification will be provided via email as indicated.
As our next scheduled class is on 20 May 2026, we kindly request a response by 18 May 2026 at 18:00. This will allow me (Nitanja Steyn) to share the response with the WhatsApp group and ensure sufficient time for communication and any further engagement. Thank you in advance for respecting this timeframe.
We remain committed to engaging constructively and respectfully, and we would greatly appreciate your prompt response so that we can better understand the way forward.
Kind regards,
Nitanja Steyn
This email is supported by students of ENG1503 (Semester 1, 2026), as reflected in the signed petition: