The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as a correct record.

There was no Convener's business.

Mr Guthrie spoke to the report which outlined the Sub-Committee's further consideration of compensation arrangements for the Generic PGT regulations, and also proposed fully revised regulations taking into account the principles already agreed by ASC and EdPSC. A revised re-draft of both the Masters and Postgraduate Certificate/Diploma regulations was tabled at the meeting.

It was noted that since the last meeting of ASC, Mr Guthrie had met with representatives from both Economics and Computing Science to discuss further their concerns about compensation. The Committee was reminded that the Department of Economics had expressed concern about the inclusion of Grade E in formulating the average as they had misgivings about Grade D being used to demonstrate a satisfactory performance, particularly given its external perception. The Faculties of Science, and Computing Science in particular, had, on the other hand, suggested that current compensation rules were too stringent and had requested that a limited amount of Grade F credit should be allowed in calculating the Grade C average. They believed this would accommodate students who achieved an average of Grade C with a small amount of credit at F, and noted that student grade profiles in Science subjects tended to show a wider range than those in other disciplines.

The Sub-Committee had not been sufficiently persuaded by the arguments presented by Economics, and members confirmed that Grade D should remain as the indicator of satisfactory performance in course results; and furthermore, compensation should be applied when calculating the average grade for progression to Masters and also the PgC and PgD exit awards.

Taking into account the position of the Faculties of Science, a modified proposal for compensation, which permitted a small amount of credit at Grade F had been circulated to departments for consultation. Six out of the eight responses favoured the proposal. There had also been a further consultation with Faculties. ASC noted that the majority of responses favoured the proposal, although there had been resistance from the Faculty of Engineering and from the Department of Economics. Dr Whittaker reported that colleagues in Engineering had expressed concern that allowing credit at Grade F to count towards a Masters degree represented a lowering of standards. However, members of ASC considered that the principle of compensation was important, that there had been no reduction in the minimum average grade required for progression - Grade C and there would be a limit on the amount of credit which could be at Grade F. It was also pointed out that undergraduate degrees permitted Grade F, and lower, to count towards the final award.

ASC therefore agreed to the following:

In order to progress to the dissertation/independent work a student must have:

(a) at least 75% of credits at D3 or better in the taught element of the course; and

(b) an average for taught elements of the programme of C3 or better; and

(c) all credits at F3 or better.

The expression of the minimum requirement of Grade D as a percentage was to accommodate programme structures which did not have the normal 120 taught credits, or scheduled the dissertation work before some of the taught courses were undertaken.

It was noted that in the revised regulations, the current footnote expressing the department's right to exercise discretion and allow progression if they judge the candidate's performance to offer a reasonable prospect of reaching the standard required for the Masters degree after reassessment, had been added to the main body of the progress regulation. Members agreed that it was important that the right to discretion be clearly stated, and it was noted that such arrangements should be 'exceptional' as stated in the regulation. It was also pointed out that this was distinct from the issue of allowing students to commence preparation of their dissertation before first diet assessment results were known. It was accepted that in many cases, students would begin preparations before examinations were even held. This was considered to be appropriate, although it was agreed that it was crucial that students had a clear understanding that they would not necessarily be entitled to continue and submit the dissertation if their taught course results were not sufficient. Members agreed that some guidance to accompany the revised PGT regulations should be developed and these should cover this issue.

Action: Senate Office

Members approved other amendments to the generic PGT regulations, and also one modification to the Code of Assessment (16.12 b). These took account of the revised requirements for Merit and Distinction, and the consistent expression of average, and capped resit, grades as aggregation scores.

The revised regulations in appendices 1, 2 and 3 are therefore recommended to EdPSC for implementation in 2009-10. Accompanying guidance for staff will be developed and circulated to departments when the regulations are published.

Professor Watt introduced the report which included a number of recommendations relating to the introduction of standard penalties for the late submission of coursework, and associated issues which had arisen from the development of these penalties.

At the previous meeting of ASC a standard tariff for late coursework had been proposed, but this had been referred back to the Working Group to reconsider after consultation with Faculties. As a result of this process, the Working Group put forward a revised tariff which reduced the number of days within which late work would be received (with penalty). The Working Group also recommended that each department should determine its own policy for allowing exemptions from the tariff (through agreed adjustment to submission dates) for cases where students provided reasonable explanation for not submitting coursework on time.

Mr Lee reported that the SRC had expressed disappointment with the reduction in the period within which work could be submitted late without an automatic allocation of Grade H. Although he accepted that the 5 day cut-off would ensure that coursework could then be returned to students who had submitted on time after a week, and therefore not be delayed, he expressed the view that while there were cases of such good practice and fast return rates, the majority of students still had to wait longer than two weeks for their assignments to be returned. Mr Lee reported more serious reservations about the proposal relating to exemption from the standard penalties. The devolution of policy to department level was considered to be too local, and contrary to the aim of improving consistency for students. It was pointed out that many students in the general Faculties were taking courses in three departments and would therefore be likely to experience significant variation in practice. Members agreed with Mr Lee's view that Faculty-level policies would be better. It was also suggested that the principles for the policy put forward by the Working Group would benefit from some strengthening. ASC agreed to refer these back to the Working Group for revision as principles for Faculty-wide policy statements for exemption from standard penalties.

Action: Senate Office

In the meantime, ASC agreed to recommend to EdPSC the following schedule of penalties for late submission of Coursework for introduction in 2009-10:

Two Schedule A aggregation points for each working day, or part of a working day, by which the work was submitted after the due date and time for a maximum of five working days; work submitted more than five days after the due date and time would be awarded Grade H.

The Working Group also reported on the issue of missing coursework and current reassessment regulations. In considering late, or non-submission of coursework, the Group had clarified that current regulations did permit students a second chance at poor or non-submitted coursework if their overall course grade was less than satisfactory. However, this permission only applied where resubmission was practicable, in order to address difficulties in replicating field studies and laboratory experiments.

ASC members fully accepted the principle of the regulation which allowed students a second chance, however there was serious concern about the implications of this in practice and the effect it would have on staff workloads. Members considered that the decision and definition of what would be practicable in terms of offering second coursework opportunities was a key aspect of the operation of this regulation. It was agreed that the Code of Assessment Working Group should be invited to reconsider this matter after consulting Faculties on the practicality of offering second coursework attempts as this was likely to vary between different academic disciplines.

Action: Senate Office

Finally, ASC approved the Working Group's proposal to modify regulation 16.42 in the Code of Assessment to accurately reflect current practice where students reported issues of good cause relating to incomplete assessments to the relevant Head of Department, rather than the Head of Registry. Regulation 16.42 would therefore be revised as follows:

Where an incomplete assessment may be the result of good cause, it shall be the responsibility of the candidate concerned to make the circumstances known to the Head of the Department responsible for the assessment, and to provide appropriate evidence. Notification later than one week after the examination, or after the date at which submission of the work for assessment was due, shall not be taken into account unless circumstances have prevented the candidate from notifying the Head of Department within this time.

Mrs Lowther, the Director of the Student Lifecycle Project (SLP), attended the meeting for this item. She introduced the paper which detailed a number of policy issues arising from the SLP which had been directed to ASC or its sub-groups.

The paper reported that the University had agreed to implement Oracle's Campus Solutions (CS) as the new student information system, and that implementation would begin in May 2009 with full completion in September 2011. This project would be managed by the SLP and would include a review of many academic and administrative processes to increase consistency in practice across the institution.

ASC was invited to consider the terminology used by Campus Solutions, which in some cases differed from the terminology in current use at Glasgow; and to consider whether any changes in CS terminology would be necessary for effective implementation of the system at Glasgow.

Attention was drawn to three key terms used at Glasgow, which were used differently within CS. These were:

Session - used by CS to equate to semesters

Term - which in CS referred to the full academic year

Programme - which in CS referred to the generic type of award e.g. MA, or BSc

It was also noted that the term 'Plan' was used by CS to denote what Glasgow, and the UK in general, would define as Degree Programme e.g. MA (Hons) History. Members were disappointed to note that Oracle did not seem to offer any flexibility in the use of more UK specific terminology without significant additional cost. Mrs Lowther advised that amendment of terminology in the system would increase costs in both the initial build of the system and then in subsequent upgrades, which were expected to be made on a continuing basis (once or twice a year). She also advised that other options were possible, for example, changing terminology on student and general Faculty pages, while retaining the structure of the data within the original terms. However, members agreed that using different terminology within the system could have significant disadvantages in terms of confusion about terms used in system reports and communication arising from the system in general.

In considering the terminology, members concluded that the use of 'plan' in the system could be handled as this was not a term currently used at Glasgow, and it was anticipated that the University community would be able to accept it as a CS term equivalent to Degree Programme and programme of study, which itself would continue to be used. However, there was serious concern about 'session', 'term' and 'programme' having different meanings, and the potential for confusion this would cause.

ASC therefore agreed to recommend to EdPSC that the SLP should be asked to negotiate with Oracle in order for the following terms to be changed in the system built for Glasgow so that

• Session would become Semester
• Term would become Academic Year
• Programme would become Award (or a suitable alternative if Award already exists in CS).

Members noted that work had commenced in reviewing course code structures so that a logical coding scheme for courses could be introduced which would fit the CS field requirements and which would enable degree regulations to be adhered to. SLP had also recommended that the new course code structure must enable accurate searching by course level, given that CS would not record course level as a standard searchable attribute.

The Committee was invited to comment on whether current practice of expressing course level by Scottish Higher Education (SHE) levels 1, 2, 3, H, M and D should be continued rather than SCQF levels 7 - 12. In discussion, members agreed that the SHE levels were meaningful in the HE context with Level 1 referring to first year etc. Members also considered that there was a good understanding of the mapping of these levels to their SCQF equivalents. The Committee was advised that it was likely that the CS codes would require numerical entries, and therefore H, M and D would need to be replaced with 4, 5 and 6, if the SHE structure was to be continued.

Members agreed that within this context, the numerical equivalent of the SHE levels should be used and therefore course levels should be expressed as 1 - 6 within CS. This view would be fed back to the SLP.

Action: Clerk

The Committee also noted that work had commenced in two further areas. Firstly, the Academic Regulations Sub-Committee had met earlier in the week to consider taking forward further harmonisation of Undergraduate Supplementary degree regulations, and a consultation paper had been circulated to Faculties. Full detail of this would be reported to the next meeting. Secondly, an ad hoc group, led by the Convener of the Code of Assessment Working Group, and including members from the Group, was considering standard content for Examination Board papers and screen displays which would be recommended to EdPSC in May.

The Convener thanked Faculty colleagues and PAG members for their excellent contribution to the programme approval process. ASC was very encouraged by the feedback on the programme approval process provided from two of the four PAGs. However, given that such positive evidence had not arisen from all Groups it was agreed that present approval arrangements should continue, with the possibility of shifting the role of the PAGs to an auditing process being considered in future after further scrutiny rounds.

ASC/2008/53.1 Faculty of Arts 

ASC received the report from the Programme Approval Group for the Faculty of Arts which had met on 13 March 2009. Professor Hill who had convened the meeting reported that the quality of documentation provided by the Faculty had been variable, with some good programme specifications being submitted. The PAG had however noted that the Board of Studies minutes had not provided clear information on what issues had been raised in the consultation, or how they had been responded to. Members agreed that more detail on the Faculty scrutiny process should be provided in future. Professor Hill reported that in three cases the PAG had not been able to recommend approval of proposals. In one case the programme specification required such significant amendment, that the PAG agreed that it should be re-considered by the Faculty before being referred back to the PAG. There had also been a separate meeting with the course proposer for two proposals for Postgraduate Certificates and Diplomas in Music. This had resulted in agreement to revise the structure of the programmes to reflect a more standard balance between taught and research components, and to allow progression between the Certificate and Diploma awards.

ASC noted that the following proposals had been recommended by the PAG, subject to the satisfactory outcome of actions noted in the report. An update on progress with these would be presented to the next meeting in May.

MLitt Making & Meaning: Approaches in Technical Art History (New)

MLitt Aerial Archaeology (Change)

MLitt Celtic & Viking Archaeology (Change)

PG Cert/Dip in Celtic & Viking Archaeology (Change)

MSc Carbon Management (Dumfries) (Change)

PG Cert/Dip in Musicology (New)

ASC noted that the PAG had been unable to recommend the following proposals. Instead they had been referred back to the Faculty for re-consideration, and an update would be presented to ASC in May on whether approval can be recommended.

MSc Museum Theory & Practice (New)

PG Cert/Dip in Composition (New)

PG Cert/Dip in Sonic Arts (New)

The Committee received a paper which sought clarification on the regulations relating to the inclusion of independent work in Honours, and professional degrees. Members noted that the University had previously agreed the principle that independent work should be included in all Honours programmes, and also professional degrees.

It was noted that the question had arisen as to whether students were required to complete this work in all cases. Regulation 16.40 of the Code of Assessment which specified that only 75% of all Honours assessment required completion was referred to, and it had been suggested that in following this, it would be possible for an Honours degree to be awarded without completion of the independent work if it amounted to less than 25% of the overall Honours assessment. However, there was an alternative interpretation of regulation 16.40 which was that the independent work would be required as it would be included in the Departmental Instructions which students had to fulfil before the 75% rule could be applied.

Members noted that the Generic Undergraduate regulation 16.1 clearly stated that eligibility for an Honours award was dependent on completion of a piece of independent work. However, it was agreed that the definition of 'completion' was problematic as students could submit a very insubstantial piece of work, gain a Grade H, yet still have technically met the requirement. Members were in agreement that the meaning of the principle agreed by the University was that students should satisfactorily complete the independent work.

It was therefore recommended to EdPSC that both the Code of Assessment and the Generic Undergraduate regulations should be amended to make explicit that it was necessary for a student to gain a Grade D3 or better in the independent work in order to qualify for an Honours degree. Similar amendments would be made for the qualification for a five year professional degree.

It was also noted that amendment to the Code of Assessment would need to include the regulation on incomplete assessment and good cause as it would be necessary to specify that the independent work required to be resubmitted at a later date if good cause had affected the initial submission. Ultimately the consequences of this could be a delay in graduation.

The Committee received the above paper which set out 10 indicators of enhancement which had been developed by an external group in conjunction with the National Enhancement Themes.

It was noted that this work was the first attempt at national level to define Quality Enhancement in the Scottish HE context. Members suggested that many of the indicators represented strategic level activity rather than direct application at the learning and teaching student interface. However it was agreed that certain indicators could be applied to the programme development process and therefore Faculties should be asked to consider whether student engagement in learning and in processes, and graduate attributes had been taken into account in programme development. This could be incorporated into the University's guidance on programme development and drawn to the attention of Faculties.

Action: Clerk

ASC/2008/56.1 Update Report: School of Modern Languages & Cultures 

The Committee noted the update from SMLC on further progress with two recommendations which had arisen from the review in March 2006. ASC agreed that good progress had been made with both matters: academic work during residence abroad; and the School's application of the Code of Assessment and briefing to staff on the Code. 

ASC/2008/56.2 Full Review Report: Archaeology 

ASC received the report of the Review of the department of Archaeology which had been held on 30 January 2009. Members welcomed the well-presented report and were impressed by the sense of a well-run department, offering a good range of provision, that had fully embraced the review process. It was agreed that many of the department's strengths were not widely known across the University, and therefore further promotional activity by the department within the University could be of benefit.

The Committee agreed to approve the 12 recommendations for onward transmission to those identified for action.

Action: Senate Office

Members received the above report of the meeting held on 28 January 2009. ASC approved the revised membership of the Board and the staff recommended as recognised as teachers of the University. The remainder of the report was noted. 

The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 29 May 2009 at 9.30am in the Melville Room.