University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Minute of Meeting held on Friday 20 November 2009 at 9:30 am in Room 321, Boyd Orr Building
Ms Morven Boyd, Professor Graham Caie, Dr Mike Carroll, Dr Quintin Cutts, Professor Thomas Guthrie, Professor Alice Jenkins, Dr Arthur Whittaker, Ms Anna Phelan, Dr Paul Skett, Professor David Watt (Convener).
In Attendance:Ms Helen Butcher
Apologies:Dr Jack Aitken, Dr Vince Bissell, Dr Frances Boyle, Professor John Davies, Professor Neil Evans, Mr Matthew Hastings, Dr Sean Johnston, Dr Philip Cotton, Professor Robert Hill.
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 October 2009 were approved.
ASC/2009/20.1 Report from Code of Assessment Working Group (ASC/2009/2.1)
It was noted that EdPSC had approved the regulatory amendment to the Code of Assessment for 2010-11 to allow the regulations on standard penalties for late submission of coursework to be applied to all students.
ASC/2009/20.2 Item from Academic Regulations Sub-Committee: Report from Meeting of 1 October 2009 (ASC/2009/4.3)
At the previous meeting the Committee had considered the introduction of Weighted Average Aggregation Scores (WAAS) to replace the grade points currently provided in Schedule C of the Code of Assessment. (It had been agreed previously that Schedule C would be discontinued in 2011-12 and the aggregation scores in Schedule A used instead.) Members were asked to consider whether instead of introducing the new term 'WAAS', the terms 'grade points' and 'grade point average' (GPA) should be retained and applied to the current Aggregation scores in Schedule A of the Code of Assessment.
It was agreed that there was a sector-wide understanding of the grade point terminology, and therefore this should be continued after Schedule C was removed.
It was confirmed that colleagues from SLP, MIS and the Senate Office would need to have dialogue regarding the transition of grade point values for students who had started with the Schedule C values and continued in the system after Schedule C had been removed. In this process the key principle would be to ensure that no student was disadvantaged by the changed values. It was also confirmed that the Senate Office would review regulations to ensure that grade point and GPA requirements were appropriately revised for 2011-12.
Action: Clerk
Professor Guthrie drew attention to a second issue under minute ASC/2009/4.2. This related to the agreement in principle that some variation between the weighting of assessment and the distribution of credit across courses would be permitted if an adequate rationale was provided. Professor Guthrie reported that this matter had been raised in recent SLP CRP1 meetings and that there was a need to identify existing programmes where assessment weightings were not consistent with the distribution of credit. Members agreed that while variations should still be permitted, existing cases should be identified and a rationale provided for ASC to review.
Action: Clerk
The Convener suggested that once the University's new College and School structure had been agreed by Court and Senate, proposals for the revision of ASC's remit and composition should be drafted, along with consideration of key processes such as programme approval and regulatory structures. To this end, he proposed to meet with the conveners of ASC's key sub groups (Professor Guthrie and Dr Whittaker) in January to discuss proposals which would be submitted to ASC in February.
Action: Clerk
ASC/2009/22.1 Faculty of Law, Business & Social Sciences
There had been one Semester 1 Programme Approval Group (PAG) which had received three proposals from LBSS. Members received the PAG report and on recommendation from the PAG approved the following new programmes which would commence in Semester 2 of the current session:
MSc in Public Policy Management
PgD in Public Policy Management
ASC noted that the external consultation for the third proposal was still in progress. Accordingly, the PAG approved the proposed new Diploma in Legal Practice subject to completion of the external consultation. ASC agreed that subsequent to this, final approval could be referred to the Convener of ASC to allow the proposal to be finalised before the next meeting of ASC. Following approval, the Diploma in Legal Practice would commence at the beginning of session 2010-11.
ASC was also invited to consider an issue raised in the PAG report which related to the tight timescales involved in the development of the Public Policy Management programmes. The proposal had been developed from existing courses as a result of a successful bid for funding from an EU integration programme. The bid had been accepted on 25 September 2009 with the first cohort of EU students planned to begin the programme in January 2010. The programme proposal process and documentation had not started until after 25 September and the PAG was concerned that such a short timescale placed pressure on both the programme developers and those involved in the various scrutiny and approval stages. This had resulted in the proposal reaching the PAG without having gone through any external scrutiny; however the PAG had insisted that there was consultation with an external academic and this was subsequently carried out to the PAG's satisfaction.
Members agreed that while there needed to be, and was, flexibility in the approval system in order for the University to respond rapidly to emerging external markets, it was essential that realistic timescales were set for the approval and introduction of new programmes. It was agreed that in future, Faculties should be asked to ensure that when tight timescales were involved, the proposal process and documentation was not deferred until after funding bids were confirmed, but that course and programme documentation should be developed before or at the same time that funding applications were made.
Action: Clerk
The Sub-Committee Convener, Professor Guthrie, introduced the report. He confirmed that following wide consultation it had become apparent that due to differences in degree programme structures it would not be possible for there to be a single generic regulation to cover progress. However, the Sub-Committee was hoping to achieve some harmonisation of current regulations by recommending a small number of variants of progress rules. Professor Guthrie reported that he was still to have discussions with some faculties/departments before final proposals would be drawn up and presented to ASC.
Members also noted that even with honours degrees of similar structure, some required more stringent honours entry and progression requirements in order to control numbers, as the University did not have sufficiently responsive systems for reallocating resources to areas of high demand. It was therefore anticipated that two sets of requirements would be introduced: i) a minimum requirement to apply to all degrees operating under the regulation, and ii) additional requirements which would vary between programmes. It was also confirmed that the Head of Department's discretionary powers to allow entry to Honours would be retained.
There was some discussion over the regulation model currently being considered for entry to Honours on the BSc degree in relation to the proposed minimum requirement of 180 credits at grade D. This requirement was likely to be lower than the number of credits at grade D required in the Faculties of Arts and LBSS, although the proposal in these areas was yet to be finalised. Some members expressed concern at having variance in this area, and it was pointed out that a standard had been agreed for the ordinary/designated degree and that it was also necessary that for the Honours requirements to relate appropriately to these. Members agreed that as a general principle students should be eligible for the ordinary/designated degree if they were permitted entry to senior honours at the end of year three, and there was concern that the current BSc proposal might compromise this (students entering with the minimum 180 credits at grade D would need to achieve a further 100 credits at grade D during third year in order to qualify for the designated BSc). It was also noted that in the Faculty of Arts, some of the requirements for the ordinary degree were not applied to qualification for Honours (e.g. the need to have taken Philosophy) and adding this requirement to Honours could have a significant impact on Honours programmes. It was agreed that these issues should be taken back to the Sub-Committee for further consideration.
Action: TG & Clerk of ARSC
The Committee received and noted Estates & Buildings' responses to the items which had been forwarded to them from the FQAEO report on annual monitoring for 2007-08. Members noted the measures which had been taken in response to concerns over the lack of accommodation for classes of 30-40 students, however there was concern that issues relating to small group teaching space (for numbers under 20) did not appear to have been addressed. This matter would be reported back to E&B.
Action: Clerk
ASC approved the revised remit, and composition, of the FQAEO Group. It was noted that this also included a statement of the role of the FQAEO which had been subject to minor amendment.
The remainder of the report was noted. This covered: revision of the Code of Practice on Annual Monitoring; identification of good practice and quality enhancement for wider dissemination; report on the workshop on annual monitoring held in June; and the introduction of an annual orientation and induction session for FQAEOs arranged by the Senate Office.
Ms Phelan, the PIP Project Manager, introduced her report which outlined proposals for the production of the University Course Catalogue for 2010-11. Following the closure of CCIMS in July 2009, the next Catalogue would be produced from PIP for the first time and this would be a web catalogue. Noting that arrangements could change in future with the introduction of the new Campus Solutions system from SLP, ASC agreed to the following principles for the production of the 2010-11 Catalogue.
- The Web Catalogue would be comprehensive and therefore all courses would be included and departments would no longer have the right to veto publication of their course information.
- The Web Catalogue information would be derived from records in PIP and departments will have principal responsibility for checking the accuracy of content in advance of the web publication.
- The Web Catalogue would be published annually in July. New courses approved after this date would be automatically added to the live Catalogue.
ASC/2009/27.1 Reports to be Received during 2009-10 and Proposed ASC Reviewers
Members noted the DPTLA review and update reports due to be received by ASC in the current session. ASC reviewers had been assigned to each report to ensure full consideration by the Committee.
ASC/2009/27.2 12-Month Update Report: Computing Science
Dr Skett, who had considered this report, outlined its content to the Committee. He drew attention to recommendation 5 where the department had taken action to ensure that recruitment information included a clear explanation of the Faculty entry system, and suggested that this was a general issue which could be considered by other departments in the general Faculties.
Attention was drawn to recommendation 1 and it was noted from the department's response that they were concerned that ASC PAGs had given inconsistent feedback on ILOs, as those for a recent programme proposal had been criticised although they were based on existing ILOs which had been approved previously. It was confirmed that most recently the PAG had noted that the ILOs under the sub-heading Knowledge and Understanding had not been written in the prescribed form, and accordingly the programme proposers had been asked to refer to the University Guidance on ILOs. This could indicate that previously there had been an oversight by the PAG, and it was agreed that it would be good practice for PAG members to familiarise themselves with the ILO guidance before considering faculty proposals. ASC also agreed that the Review Panel Convener's recommendation should be taken forward, and therefore the department would be asked to seek guidance from colleagues in the Learning & Teaching Centre and report on progress with implementing recommendation 1 in six months time.
Action: Senate Office
ASC was satisfied with the responses to the remaining recommendations. Concerning the Review Panel Convener's suggestion that a workload model algorithm be devised to address the fact that some supervisors projects were more popular than others, the Committee did not consider this to be particularly helpful, and therefore did not recommend that this should be taken forward.
ASC/2009/28.1 The Reflective Analysis - Section 5
Members considered a paper containing an excerpt of Section 5 of the University's Reflective Analysis which had been prepared for the ELIR visit. Section 5 summarised the broad areas identified for further enhancement and development which would be used to inform the future development of the University's Learning and Teaching, Research and Knowledge Transfer, and PGR strategies. ASC was invited to consider future actions and priorities for the Committee arising from this.
It was agreed that ASC's focus would be in the areas identified in sections 5.3 and 5.4 (institution-led monitoring and review of quality and academic standards; and implementation of the University's strategic approach to quality enhancement). In particular, it was anticipated that the Committee would be proactive in:
- the further streamlining of undergraduate degree regulations and the development of generic PGR Masters regulations;
- disseminating good practice and innovation;
- development of the role of the Faculty Quality Assurance and Enhancement Officers;
- development of procedures relating to monitoring and self-evaluation of collaborative provision.
ASC/2009/28.2 Enhancement-led Institional Review Update
The Committee received a progress report on the current ELIR exercise in which the University was participating. It was noted that the Part 1 visit in October had identified the following themes which would be explored during the Part 2 visit:
- role of the faculties in the development and implementation of University strategies, and in the management of quality assurance and enhancement
- committee structure and role of the committees in facilitating management of quality (in particular at faculty level) - connectivity and workflow
- collaborative and validated provision
- internationalisation, and elements of the strategy In addition, the report detailed the various documents which had been requested by the Review team and would be considered by them at the Part 2 visit.
The Committee was reminded that its remit included receipt of annual reports for degrees which the University awarded jointly with other institutions. A list of the joint degrees which had run during 2008-09 was provided and members noted that the Senate Office would be requesting annual reports from the relevant Faculties in order to forward these to ASC.
It was agreed that all annual reports received should be submitted to ASC, and that for the six degrees where Glasgow was the lead institution, each report should be considered in detail by two nominated ASC reviewers, similar to the model used for considering DPTLA reports.
Action: Senate Office
ASC received and approved a proposal that the University's validated degree, BSc (Hons) Applied Animal Science, operating at SAC should be offered as an intercalated degree for BVMS students at the University of Edinburgh. Under this arrangement students who had successfully completed the first three years of the BVMS would enter the honours year of the BSc Applied Animal Science and, subject to satisfactory results, be awarded the BSc (Hons) degree before resuming the BVMS programme at Edinburgh.
ASC received a paper which had been prepared by Professor C Brink (Vice Chancellor of Newcastle University) for the Russell Group which provided an overview of recent developments and published reports relating to quality and standards in UK universities. Further to this, information on two more recent developments was also provided.
As detailed in the papers, ASC noted that the House of Commons Innovation, Universities & Skills Commons Select Committee, the public and the media had in recent months expressed concerns and criticism about quality and standards in UK universities. As a result, various responses have been provided by the HE sector including a number of reviews to deliver improvements. Members noted that the following reports had been published:
- May 2009 - QAA Thematic inquiries into concerns about academic quality and standards in England;
- August 2009 - IUSSC report on students and universities (recommended the formation of a new Quality and Standards Agency)'
- October 2009 - HEFCE Committee on Teaching Quality and Student Experience, report on quality with recommendations on a variety of issues including admissions, degree classification, plagiarism, contact time and learning hours;
- November 2009 - the Government published Higher Ambition 'a new framework for the future success of higher education, setting out the important role universities will play in securing the country's economic recovery and long-term prosperity'.
In addition, it was noted that UUK had set up a Quality Forum under the auspices of its Student Experience Policy Committee and the following consultations were also proposed:
i) by UUK on the future of QA in England and Northern Ireland, including a recommended review of the UK-wide external examiner system; and
ii) by QAA an evaluation of the Academic Infrastructure to 'consider whether the Academic Infrastructure has met, and continues to meet, its aims in helping institutions to set and maintain the academic standards of their awards and manage the quality of the learning opportunities they provide for students'. QAA proposed to publish a consultative discussion paper early in 2010 with a final report being published in summer 2010.
Members noted that while some of these developments focused on higher education in England and Northern Ireland, there would also be implications for Scottish Higher Education as many aspects of the academic infrastructure and QAA activity were UK wide.
The Committee received an update on the development of the HEAR which had been issued by UUK. This indicated that the HEAR, which was intended to provide a richer description of student achievement, would be introduced throughout the HE sector at the beginning of the academic year 2011-12 with an opportunity for institutions to start issuing it voluntarily in 2010-11. The European Diploma Supplement Working Group would co-ordinate implementation of the HEAR at Glasgow.
The Committee received the SLP monthly update for October 2009. Members found this report to be too general and lacking in detail on specific issues which were relevant to, or had been considered by ASC. It was therefore requested that in future SLP reports presented to ASC should be tailored specifically to the business of the Committee.
Action: Clerk