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

The Committee was updated by the Clerk of Senate on action being taken in relation to examination disruption for students stranded overseas as a result of the air travel constraints caused by volcanic ash.

Information had been circulated to all students and staff explaining how the University's regulations on Incomplete Assessment and Good Cause would be applied. Where examinations were missed students would be given the opportunity to take the assessments at a later date (either by examination or an alternative, agreed, assessment method). In the case of Senior Honours students, there was strong encouragement for special examinations (or alternative assessments) to be scheduled as soon as possible to increase the chances of assessments being completed in time for successful students to attend the summer graduations (special examinations would not be set if students had sat at least 75% of their honours assessments). Mr Hastings reported that there was timetable space in the fourth week of the examination diet to schedule some additional examinations, and special examinations could also be held in the following week.

For all other students, the examination opportunity would be at the August resit diet period, and Masters progression requirements would be waived for affected PGT students.

It was reported that the International Office had raised concerns at the prospect of August examinations, noting that i) while numbers were not yet known, more international students were likely to have been affected by the travel disruption; ii) many students were likely to request sitting the August examinations overseas; and iii) August results would be too late for some exchange students and this could impact on their continuation arrangements for 2010-11. In light of this it was anticipated that special examinations in May/June might be a preferred solution on courses where international students had been affected.

In cases were revision had been disrupted, it was confirmed that students should be advised to sit examinations but to report in cases where they considered their performance had been impaired by the disruption to revision. Boards of Examiners would then take this into consideration under the regulations for Incomplete Assessment and Good Cause.

ASC considered a report of the meeting which the Clerk of Senate and Convener had held with colleagues in the Faculty of Biomedical and Life Sciences to discuss their proposal for all FBLS Honours degree classifications to be calculated on the basis of a full weighting for assessments in year 4. Members noted the points that had been presented at that meeting:

1. The proposal would provide consistency across all Honours degrees in the Faculty.
2. Third year work was a preparatory framework for the detailed work in year 4 which itself covered generic and transferrable skills in addition to specialist honours level skills.
3. No concerns had been raised by external examiners, or students regarding the current weighting for honours which was based entirely on year 4 assessment.
4. There was concern that students would be disadvantaged by including year 3 performance in the weighting. Statistics were provided showing that average course grades were lower in year 3 compared to year 4. Data showing the University's comparative position in Biological Sciences in terms of first class and good honours degrees were also provided. These showed that Glasgow was slightly below the Russell Group average and slightly above the average for Scottish institutions. The Faculty did not want to take any measures which would reduce the number of good degrees being attained at Glasgow.
5. In considering the reasons for the lower performance in year 3, it was considered that this arose from the significant step-up in the nature of year 2 to year 3, with year 3 increasing in breadth and grounding for the specialist electives in year 4.
6. The honours assessment for intercalated degrees was based on one year's work and the same calculation for standard 4 year degrees allowed comparability between all BSc degrees awarded in the Faculty.
7. The classification for MSci degrees was based on year 4 assessments with some contribution from the assessment of the work placement.

ASC discussed the proposal in detail. Although some members felt that the third year performance could, in some part, count towards the final award, it was agreed that FBLS should be permitted to diverge from the generic undergraduate regulations in respect of the assessment weighting for Honours. This was on the basis of their current programme structures where the Honours specialism was delivered only in final year. FBLS would therefore be permitted to calculate their Honours classifications solely on the basis of year 4 assessments. It was agreed that this arrangement should be in place until such time that the degree programmes were reviewed and at that point the Faculty was strongly urged to review its programme structures with a view to incorporating material in year 3 which could be included in the final Honours classification.

Members were also advised that the Bachelor of Nursing degree, which selected for Honours at the end of year 2, was also proposing to continue with its current practice of only counting 4th year performance in the final Honours classification. The School Administrator had explained that the third year was common between the Honours and non Honours students, and it appeared that 4th year only was considered to be the Honours programme. ASC noted however that there were degrees in other areas of the University which offered a common third year for Honours and non Honours students, but still gave the 3rd year an appropriate weighting in the assessment for the Honours classification. Members agreed that they did not have sufficient information from the School of Nursing & Healthcare to be able to agree to their proposed exception to the generic regulations. It was therefore agreed that the School should be requested to provide a detailed rationale of why the third year could not contribute to the final honours classification on the Bachelor of Nursing programme. This would then be considered by ASC at its meeting in May.

Action: Clerk

Professor Guthrie introduced the report which covered a number of regulatory issues which had been considered by the Sub-Committee.

Application of Regulation 1.9

The Sub-Committee had considered the interpretation of Regulation 1.9 of the Fees & General Section of the University Calendar following a query as to whether the revised PGT Generic Regulations (introduced for 2009-10) could be applied in relation to the 2008-09 PGT Masters cohort, bearing in mind that the Board of Examiners for the 2008-09 awards had met in September 2009, after the publication of the 2009-10 regulations.

Members were reminded of the current wording of the Regulation:

§1.9 Regulations published in the University Calendar shall normally apply, unless explicit provision is contained therein to the contrary, only to students commencing a programme of studies or research later than the date on which the regulations became effective. Any student commencing a programme of studies or research earlier than that date shall be subject to the regulations in place when he or she began that programme unless regulations, including the current regulations, introduced at a later date are considered, after consultation with the student, to benefit the student.

ASC agreed with the following principles put forward by the Sub-Committee:

• where students had completed the assessment under the old set of regulations, then those regulations should apply throughout. If a student from the same cohort was re-sitting an assessment at a later date, then the old regulations should still apply;
• for any one cohort of students one rule should be applied;
• the question of whether a new regulation could be applied to the benefit of the student cohort could arise in the latter stages of a programme which ran over several years, and that to have a flexible interpretation of this provision was desirable.

It was noted that the exact timing of a PGT Masters Board of Examiners (which typically meets early in the following academic year) is not relevant to this issue.

Regulation Revision: Counting Courses for Progress/Final Award

ASC approved the undernoted revisions to the generic undergraduate and taught postgraduate regulations which were designed to reinforce the principle that the assessment at Honours should be based on a student's first attempt, and to ensure that courses could not normally be discounted and replaced with alternatives.

Additional regulations:

Undergraduate Regulations 16 and 17

Where a candidate remains enrolled on a course at level 3 or above which forms part of his or her Honours programme either:

(a) on the date on which the first summative assessment for that course is to be submitted; or

(b) on such other date as may be specified in the course document for that course;

that course must normally (unless other provision is justified by good cause circumstances affecting the student) be counted towards the calculation of his or her Honours classification.

Generic Masters Regulation 6

Where a candidate remains enrolled on a course either:

(a) on the date on which the first summative assessment for that course is to be submitted; or

(b) on such other date as may be specified in the course document for that course;

that course must normally (unless other provision is justified by good cause circumstances affecting the student) be counted towards the calculation of his or her average aggregation score for the purposes of regulations 7, 9 and 10.

Opportunities for Second Attempts at Coursework

The Sub-Committee had considered the regulations for re-assessment in the Code of Assessment which included provision that a second attempt would normally be permitted.

ASC noted the following points which had been made by the Sub-Committee:

• In acknowledging that there were inevitably situations in which it would not be practicable to offer second opportunities, the Sub-Committee agreed that in such cases this should be laid out very clearly in course documentation before the start of the course;
• It was observed that in some courses a re-assessment might be possible in a different format if it was possible to assess against the same ILOs. For example, an essay might be substituted for an examination;
• Variation in the availability of second attempts between different areas of the University was considered to be justifiable.

ASC agreed that the wording of the guidance should be amended to reflect these points.

Action: Senate Office

Schedule B of the Code of Assessment

ASC approved the revision to the primary verbal descriptors in Schedule B of the Code of Assessment as detailed in Appendix 1. These had been prepared in consultation with members from the professional degrees which used Schedule B and would be introduced in the Code of Assessment in 2010-11. It was also noted that the new Diploma in Legal Practice would be making use of the Schedule.

Retracting Claims of Good Cause

ASC agreed with the Sub-Committee's proposal that the wording of sections 16.45 - 16.49 of the Code of Assessment ('Incomplete Assessment resulting from Good Cause') should be amended to clarify that students should not be have the option to retract a claim of good cause after an assessment result was available. It was confirmed that students could retract a good cause claim within the normal period in which a good cause claim could be made i.e., within one week of the examination or other submission deadline

Action: Senate Office

Dr Whittaker introduced the paper which proposed arrangements for students who were midway through their programmes when Schedule C was discontinued in 2011-12. The Committee's attention was also drawn to the grade profile analysis which had been undertaken for the 3rd and 4th year cohorts in Mechanical Engineering in 2008-09.

ASC noted that the change of grade point values from the 16 point Schedule C to the 22 grade point scale resulted in a bigger difference between the grade point values for the higher grades, with grades A1 and B1 particularly being affected (A1 increased by 6 points in the new system and B1 by 3). The effect of this was that higher grades could increase averages in the new system compared to the old.

In comparing the grade point averages calculated under the current and proposed grade point values, it was found that although some students achieved a marginally lower average under the new system, these had no impact on their eligibility for passing a 3 year degree, or achieving merit or distinction. Furthermore, no students were found to have been disadvantaged by the new system. However there were also cases where the average in the new system was higher (due to the effect described above), and this did impact on overall results as follows.

From a sample of 185 3rd and 4th year Mechanical Engineering students:

6.5% more were eligible for a designated degree

1% more were eligible for a Merit

7% more were eligible for a Distinction

The Committee noted that grade points were used for non Honours assessment and also for assessment for Honours entry. Members discussed in detail whether the effect of widening the grade point scale to accurately match the granularity of both primary grades and secondary bands reflected any change in standards. It was concluded that using a grade point scale which recognised the grades and bands of Schedule A of the Code of Assessment represented fuller implementation of the Code, and that the recognition of good performance (i.e. the achievement of a high secondary band) was an important principle of the Code, but did not change standards.

The Committee went on to consider the transitional arrangements for students mid-way through their studies in 2011-12 when Schedule C was to be discontinued. It was agreed to recommend to EdPSC that all historical results for these students should be recalculated on the basis of the New Grade Point scale, and the revised regulations requiring the New GPAs should be applied. This would be done at the point when student data was transferred from WebSurf to the new system (Campus Solutions). It was further agreed that clear messages would need to be provided to students to explain that use of the New Grade Point scale represented no disadvantage or lowering of marks for them - this would be particularly relevant for D3 and E2/3 where the new grade point score was lower.

Action: Clerk

The Committee was advised that the University's response to the current QAA consultation on the Academic Infrastructure was under preparation. Input had been sought from a number of areas within the University, including members of ASC, and the final response would be circulated to members out of committee. 

A report on the implications of University restructuring for the University's internal review system for Departmental Programmes of Learning, Teaching & Assessment (DPTLA) was received and considered (see Appendix 2). Members accepted the advantages which had been presented in terms of retaining a subject-based approach to internal review. It was also noted that a subject-based focus reflected the student experience most closely and this was desirable as enhancement of the student experience was one of the key objectives of the review process.

ASC agreed to recommend to EdPSC:

i) adoption of a subject-based approach for internal review in the new University structures; and,

ii) that the process be renamed to Periodic Subject Review.

Further to the report received at the previous meeting, ASC received notice of, and approved the proposal for two new members of SAC''s academic staff to be recognised as teachers of the University. 

The Committee received and noted the summary report of accreditations which had been undertaken by professional statutory and regulatory bodies during sessions 2007-08 and 2008-09. Accreditation events had taken place in the following areas:

Psychology

Urban Studies

University of Glasgow, Dumfries Campus

Physics and Astronomy

Psychological Medicine

Glasgow School of Social Work (Universities of Strathclyde & Glasgow) 

ASC received and noted the above report of the meeting held on 21 December 2009. 

The Committee received and noted an update on the introduction of the Higher Education Achievement Report which would be introduced in 2011-12 in place of the University's current student transcript and European Diploma Supplement.  

There was no further business. 

The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 28 May 2010 at 9.30 a.m. in the Melville Room.