University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Minute of Meeting held on Friday 28 May 2010 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room
Dr Vince Bissell, Ms Morven Boyd, Professor Graham Caie, Dr Mike Carroll, Professor Frank Coton, Dr Philip Cotton, Dr Quintin Cutts, Professor Thomas Guthrie, Mr Matthew Hastings, Professor Alice Jenkins, Dr Paul Skett, Professor David Watt (Convener).
In Attendance:Ms Helen Butcher, Dr Frances Boyle, Professor Martin Beirne (for item 8), Mrs Catherine Omand (for item 9), Tuulla Erikson (SRC rep for 2010/11).
Apologies:Dr Jack Aitken, Professor John Davies, Professor Neil Evans, Professor Bob Hill, Dr Sean Johnston, Ms Anna Phelan, Dr Arthur Whittaker.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
Further to discussion at the previous meeting it was noted that the new University committee structure would permit Colleges to operate more than one Board of Studies.
It was reported that the School of Nursing and Healthcare had reconsidered the proposed weighting of the honours assessment for the Bachelor of Nursing and, following consultation with colleagues in other faculties, the BN Undergraduate Teaching Committee had proposed a 30:70 assessment weighting between the Junior Honours and Senior Honours Years. ASC approved the proposal noting the following rationale which had been provided by the School:
- a 30% carry forward from Year 3 would give more impetus for the 3rd Year students to achieve the best of standards in Year 3;
- the weighting would encourage students to strive in Senior Honours;
- the 70% weighting in Year 4 accounted for the fact that Year 4 was at an advanced standard which would prepare students to achieve the higher levels of skills, knowledge and attributes for advanced learning.
It was noted that EdPSC had approved proposals regarding arrangements for the transition from Schedule C to the new Grade Point scale in 2011-12.
The Convener updated members on the MSc Criminology and Criminal Justice degree which had been approved in April 2009 subject to completion of the Memorandum of Agreement with Strathclyde University. It was noted that the MoA had been finalised and was due to be signed by all parties on 2 June 2010.
Professor Guthrie introduced the report which proposed a number of regulatory amendments. ASC also noted that the Sub-Committee planned to undertake a review of Masters degree regulations for programmes which did not conform to the generic PGT regulations.
ASC approved the following regulatory amendments.
Weighting in the Classification of integrated Masters Degrees
Weightings in the calculation of Honours classifications for integrated Masters awards should range from 10:20:70 to 20:30:50 across years 3, 4 & 5. In cases where weightings were to fall outwith this range, a proposal would need to be presented to ASC.
This amendment was based on the agreed principles that for integrated Masters degrees, account should be taken of assessments in the final three years; and in recognition of the Masters level of the award, at least 50% of the weighting should be based on the Masters level study in year 5.
Additional requirements for entry to Honours
Further to the requirements for entry to Honours at the beginning of year 3 agreed by the Committee in February, it was agreed that the requisite 240 credits should carry a GPA of at least 10. Otherwise there was a risk that students could enter Honours with a GPA of 9, which was less than the requirement for an ordinary or designated degree.
It was also clarified that the previously agreed provision that Honours entry requirements should be met 'normally at the first attempt' only related to the requirement for at least 40 Level 2 credits at grade C or above.
ASC also confirmed that different degrees could state further requirements for the number of level 2 credits required in their supplementary regulations. However it was agreed that specific grade requirements for the level 2 credits could not be specified in the supplementary regulations. It was also recognised that where there was high demand for Honours places, and resources could not respond rapidly to demand, higher grade requirements could be stipulated in course/programme documentation.
The above revisions would be written into the relevant regulations and the final wording approved by the Convener and Clerk of Senate under summer powers.
Action: Clerk
Final Year of Study
It was agreed that as had previously been the case, undergraduate degree regulations should require that the final year of study for a University of Glasgow award be undertaken at Glasgow rather than at another institution. The revision to generic undergraduate regulation 4 was approved as given below (amendment indicated by underline):
4. Recognition of Prior Learning
4.1 Credit may be awarded towards the completion of a degree programme for courses or examinations satisfactorily completed while following another programme at the University of Glasgow or at another institution or, where indicated in the degree's supplementary regulations, for other examinations satisfactorily completed. Such credit may permit a candidate entry to the second or subsequent year of the degree programme. The maximum limit for the award of such credit is, other than in exceptional circumstances and with the approval of the Clerk of Senate, 50% of the credits associated with the degree programme. Candidates must normally attend courses offered by the University of Glasgow during their final year of study.
This revision would not preclude joint degrees and partnership agreements the University held with other institutions.
Merit/Distinction Provisions for Non-Honours Undergraduate Awards
ASC agreed that the Faculties of Science should be permitted to retain their specific requirements for the award of merit and distinction in non-Honours awards which related to specific performance requirements in the designated subject.
Progress - Supplementary Regulations
Attention was drawn to the following progress regulation that was common to a number of supplementary regulations:
'After three sessions: The candidate must be in a position to complete the requirements for the award of a designated degree in one further session of full-time study.'
It was reported that this regulatory format could not be codified in the new student information system being designed by the SLP. In reviewing the regulation to allow it to be codified, the Sub-Committee had concluded that a more specific regulation encompassing all requirements for progression should be introduced.
ASC agreed that the current regulation should be replaced with the following:
After three sessions, in order to progress, candidates must have attained:
240 credits with a GPA of at least 10
160 credits at D or better
60 credits at level 2 or above.
The Committee received an update from the Department of Astronomy regarding the position of Astronomy 2 which offered only 30 credits at level 2 and thus would not meet the agreed requirement of 40 level 2 credits in the subject of Honours entry. The Department reported that Astronomy was only available as a combined Honours degree where at least 90 level 2 credits were required in the combined subjects (i.e. Physics and Astronomy or Maths and Astronomy). It was also reported that various options to revise the level 2 structure to extend Astronomy 2 to 40 credits had been identified which required further consideration and appropriate consultation with students, external examiners and the external advisory committee.
ASC agreed that Astronomy 2 should run in its current 30 credit structure during 2010-11 noting that the department would set up a working group to explore future options for 2011-12 onwards.
The Committee received a paper outlining some concerns that had been raised regarding the permitted examination durations under the University regulations which had been approved in Senate in October 2007 and fully introduced in 2008-09. Particular concerns had been raised by two departments that 2 hour exams at level 3 and above were found to give insufficient time for the range and depth required.
It was noted that two hour exams often arose for two reasons:
i) because the weighting of other elements of assessments on the course reduced the permitted time for examinations; and
ii) two hours is the maximum duration for an individual examination in all diets except the Spring examination period (which also allows three hour examinations). Therefore, in cases where the permitted examination duration may be in excess of two hours, splitting the examination over two papers (e.g. one hour and one and a half hours) was considered less useful than holding a single two hour examination.
ASC agreed that the Academic Regulations Sub-Committee should review the current regulations concerning the duration of examinations.
Action: Clerk of ARSC
A report was considered which drew attention to an issue in the above regulations in the Code of Assessment concerning the process for considering requests for exemptions from penalties or coursework extensions of more than three days. This highlighted the difficulty arising from the fact that exemptions from standard penalties could be granted in terms of the Code of Assessment's regulations on incomplete assessment and good cause. These allowed Heads of Department to judge whether a student had demonstrated that good cause had prevented them from submitting coursework on time, but this was subject to ratification by the Board of Examiners. ASC agreed that in the case of allowing extensions or waiving penalties, the provisional nature of the Head of Department's decision would be problematic as students would be placed in a position of uncertainty until after the Board of Examiners had met.
ASC agreed that the regulations for incomplete assessment and good cause should be amended to allow Heads of School (formerly Heads of Department) to make final decisions on good cause in relation to coursework submission. These decisions would be taken in consultation with the Assessment Officer and simply reported to the Board of Examiners. ASC agreed that it was important for Heads of School to ensure rigorous consistency in decisions on exemption requests.
The revised regulations are shown in Appendix 1. These also show revisions arising from the previous agreement that students should not be permitted to retract claims of good cause after an assessment result was available.
It was reported that previously the Programme Approval Group (PAG) had recommended approval of two proposals subject to conditions, and these had now been met. ASC therefore approved the following programme amendments.
MLitt Medieval & Renaissance Studies
MA Hons Theology & Religious Studies
It was reported that previously the Programme Approval Group (PAG) had recommended approval of two proposals subject to conditions, and these had now been met. ASC therefore approved the following new programmes.
BSc Environmental Stewardship (Dumfries Campus)
MSc Working with Communities
ASC noted that conditions and actions had not yet been completed for the following new programme proposals and therefore these would be submitted to the Committee for approval under summer powers once the PAG was satisfied that conditions had been met.
MSc International Planning and Urban Policy
LLM Contemporary Law and Practice
It was reported to ASC that the three work based learning programmes proposed by the Faculty of Education (BA Drug & Alcohol Practice; CertHE Employability Practice; and CertHE Equality & Diversity) had been reviewed and revisions had been made to the proportion of work based learning hours. In addition it had been confirmed that prospective students in full time employment would only be admitted to the programmes if their employer provided a signed agreement to the University confirming that the student would be permitted to attend all classes.
ASC agreed to approve these new proposals along with those which the PAG had reported as having met the previously noted conditions. In addition, the conditions relating to the major revision to the BEd degree had been met. The following proposals were therefore approved.
Faculty of Education
Certificate HE in Egyptology (Language / Material Culture)
CertHE Employability Practice
CertHE Equality & Diversity
Diploma HE in Creative Writing
BA Drug & Alcohol Practice
BEd (Hons)
MEd/PGDip Community Learning & Development
MEd Professional Practice
MSc Young People, Social Inclusion & Change
PgCert Teaching in Higher Education
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
BSc (VetSci) Marine & Freshwater Biology / Zoology
Faculty of Medicine
Professional Doctorate Health Professions Education
MSc (Clin Sci) Critical Care and Medical Informatics
PgCert / CPD Behavioural Sleep Medicine
PgCert Child Health
PgCert Public Health
ASC noted that conditions and actions had not yet been completed for the following new programme proposal and therefore it would be submitted to the Committee for approval under summer powers once the PAG was satisfied that conditions had been met.
Faculty of Education
MEd Religious Studies
It was reported that previously the Programme Approval Group (PAG) had recommended approval of two proposals subject to conditions, and these had now been met. ASC therefore approved the following new programmes.
Faculty of Engineering
BEng Biomedical Engineering
MEng Biomedical Engineering
Faculties of Science
BSc Hons Theoretical Physics
MSc Chemistry
MSc Chemistry with Medicinal Chemistry
It was noted that the following proposals had been referred back to Faculty and although further information on the Faculty scrutiny had been provided, evidence had not yet been received that all the PAG's conditions for approval had been met. Therefore these would be submitted to the Committee for approval under summer powers once the PAG was satisfied that conditions had been met.
Faculties of Science
MSc Applied Population & Statistical Mapping
MSc Landscape Monitoring & Mapping
MSc Astrophysics
MSc Physics: Advanced Materials
MSc Physics: Energy and the Environment
MSc Physics: Life Sciences
MSc Physics: Global Security
MSc Theoretical Physics
ASC received a report of the recent activity of the PCAWG. ASC noted and approved the proposed action of the Working Group to meet with Deans of Learning and Teaching in the new College structure in order to draw their attention to the detailed guidance on the programme and course approval process in the University. Deans would be asked to disseminate this information to all relevant College staff to facilitate understanding and full implementation of the agreed procedures.
Members also noted that recent development of MRes degrees which included elements of both taught courses and research had raised questions over the most appropriate approval mechanism, because approval for postgraduate research provision differed from that for taught programmes. ASC agreed that the following criteria should categorise degrees as taught for programme approval purposes, and therefore proposals falling into these categories should be considered by Faculty/College Boards of Studies and then Programme Approval Groups before final approval by ASC:
- programmes with any award, including an exit award (e.g. Pg Certificate), comprised of taught credits; and/or
- programmes including taught credit for courses which would be delivered to cohorts of students, rather than through individual research supervision.
In respect of item 2 it was acknowledged that many research degrees included a small amount of research skill training which might be credit rated. It was agreed that this, on its own, would not categorise a degree as 'taught'.
This information would be incorporated into the Programme and Course Approval Guidance which was currently being updated for 2010-11.
Action: Senate Office
ASC noted that the Working Group had considered that proposals for non-standard CPD awards, such as named diplomas, might be considered through a modified lighter touch approval procedure and the Convener would be bringing forward proposals for an alternative approval process to the Working Group.
The Working Group was also planning to take forward the one remaining recommendation from the internal audit report on Programme approval which had been deferred due to restructuring. This sought a review of Faculty-level implementation of scrutiny procedures to identify areas of good practice and any possible standardisation of practice across the University. In noting that College Boards of Studies would be responsible for the approval of both courses and programmes under the new structures, it was recognised that there could be some variation in the methods used by various Boards of Studies in granting approval to both courses and programmes. The Working Group therefore agreed to undertake an equivalent review to that recommended by Deloitte once procedures were being implemented at College level. This would therefore commence once the College Boards of Studies had been engaged in approval activity. (Convener's note: The Working Group convener has clarified that the intention is to start this review as soon as the Boards of Studies have been formed but before they start their work.)
Action: Clerk of Programme & Course Approval WG
Professor Beirne attended the meeting to introduce the report of the FQAEO Group on the annual monitoring for session 2008-09. The FQAEO Group had considered Faculty overview reports of annual monitoring for undergraduate provision in March and for postgraduate taught programmes in April, and from this process a consolidated report had been prepared for ASC.
It was reported that the annual monitoring demonstrated a broadly consistent pattern of student performance across the University, and over time. Concerns over pass rates and retention had been identified in some areas, notably Engineering, but steps were being taken to address these.
Student feedback had been positive with the majority of students being enthusiastic and engaged with their education. Key reasons for this had been identified as the links between teaching and research, an appropriate balance between theoretical and applied studies and the use of group based activities in teaching. Content and delivery of taught provision was therefore found to be strong although Professor Beirne suggested that there appeared to be a reticence in sharing good practice across subject boundaries which therefore limited opportunities for the University to publicise its strengths in order to boost its reputation and recruitment.
Responses from students had also revealed positive interaction with professional bodies and industry, and a good focus on employability and the development of generic skills. There was also praise for the encouragement of reflective and independent learning and academic staff were found to enliven the student experience and therefore engage learners. Action learning with actors had been praised in some areas such as Dentistry. External examiners had also praised the steps taken by staff to be innovative in their delivery and there was also strong support for standards.
The area where students found less satisfaction was feedback on formative assessment where issues were raised both in terms of the length of time taken to receive feedback and also, in some cases, the limited nature of the feedback. ASC noted that this was an area which was being addressed in many departments following identification of concerns through student feedback, the National Student Survey and DPTLA reviews. It was also noted that staff had noted in the annual monitoring reports that a larger number of students were not collecting coursework feedback which had been prepared for them.
Professor Beirne reported to the Committee that the annual monitoring revealed a mixture of responses from staff. There was an acute sense of pressure in the context of a high level of teaching innovation and development, for example through work in refreshing PGT programmes. A need for consolidation had been identified in some areas. Staff had also identified some potential problems which it was perceived could undermine quality eventually. These included poor lecture attendance from students, poor English language and Maths underpinning skills, problems with Central Room Bookings and lack of suitable teaching space particularly for PGT provision.
It was reported that frustration with teaching and learning accommodation was threatening to impact on the annual monitoring and enhancement agenda. The Committee was told that while some progress had been made, and the channelling of information to the Teaching Infrastructure Working Group was a welcome development, there was widespread concern that certain accommodation issues were reported annually without any improvement, notably the lack of suitable rehearsal space for music and drama students. The lack of response, feedback or noticeable action was considered to be a threat to the process which had undergone successful improvement in recent years.
ASC agreed that this issue required serious attention and that it was necessary to find effective ways of informing staff of actions that were being taken in response to issues they raised. It was therefore agreed that the Convener and Clerk would meet with Professor Beirne and Ms Omand, the Clerk of the FQAEO Group, to establish an effective process for ensuring feedback to staff on action and responses to issues raised through the annual monitoring process.
In concluding on the report, Professor Beirne drew the Committee's attention to the FQAEO Group's concerns for the future. The Group wished to highlight their concerns over the anticipated impact of the current proposed staffing reductions on quality and standards in teaching and learning. The Group was unclear of the extent to which the University's structural change committees were considering teaching quality issues in their current planning.
Members of ASC agreed with the concerns raised, and individual members cited examples of teaching which were unlikely to be delivered next session if the expected staff reductions were implemented. There was a strong view that core areas of teaching would also be affected with compulsory elements of both the Medicine and Dentistry degrees cited as areas which would lose vital expertise from staff reduction in the Faculty of Biomedical and Life Sciences. It was agreed that Professors Caie and Coton should raise at the University's Senior Management Group, the Committee's concerns over the impact proposed staffing reductions would have on essential teaching provision and quality.
Action: Clerk of Senate and VP (L&T)
ASC considered the actions identified for the University in the FQAEO report (section 10). It was noted that there were two actions outstanding from last year which required taking forward by the Director of Estates and Buildings:
- FBLS: lack of clear instructions and trouble-shooting for AV facilities recently upgraded in the Boyd Orr Building remains an issue.
- Dentistry: capital investment is required for the classroom in which the recently purchased high resolution digital microscope is to be used.
These would be drawn to Mr McConnell's attention and a response sought.
Action: Senate Office
ASC approved the actions identified in 10.2 (see Appendix 2) with a number of small modifications e.g. the first two items relating to accommodation issues would also be drawn to the attention of the Vice Principal for Strategy and Resources, and the action under the Faculty of Arts regarding revision week would be re-directed to the Academic Structures Implementation Group. ASC agreed that a timescale for responses to actions identified for particular officers or groups would be drawn up at the meeting between the Clerk and Convener, and Professor Beirne and Ms Omand.
Action: Senate Office
Ms Omand attended the meeting to speak to her report. The report outlined the analysis of all external examiner reports received and highlighted issues which external examiners had drawn attention to. ASC noted that overall there was a high satisfaction rate from external examiners (88%) and this reflected an 8% increase from the previous year. Members also noted that there had been a reduction in the issues raised, particularly in key areas such as marking and marking schemes, and assessment. In cases where issues were raised, the Senate Office drew these to the attention of departments and sought feedback on responses to ensure that these were passed on to examiners.
The report also provided an update on various process improvements which had been achieved or were in the process of being implemented. It was also noted that consultation with faculties on the review of fees had been completed, and a revised formula which took account of courses and credit values would be presented to Senior Management Group (SMG) in June. It was anticipated that the revised fees would be introduced immediately following SMG approval and therefore be in place before the restructuring on 1 August.
In terms of restructuring, it was noted from the report that current responsibilities of departments would be transferred to Schools (e.g. nomination and appointment of external examiners, responses to reports). Currently nominations and appointments were ratified at Faculty level, and it was suggested that if there was to be some College input this would be appropriate at the level of the Dean of Learning and Teaching, rather than Head of College.
The Committee received an update on proposed arrangements for the University's internal review system for learning, teaching and assessment under the new College and School structures which would be in place from August 2010. Proposals had been amended following discussion at EdPSC, and members' attention was drawn to proposed combinations of subjects for review as detailed in Appendix 3. These allowed some combination of review of subjects within Schools. ASC approved the reviews proposed in Appendix 3 subject to consultation with the Schools concerned.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2009/76.2.1 Accounting & Finance
ASC received the report of the above departmental review held on 24 and 25 February 2010. Members expressed some concern over the proposal that staff-student liaison committee meetings should be held on a monthly basis (recommendation 22). This level of frequency was considered to be impractical and not representative of standard practice in the University.
ASC therefore approved the report and all recommendations, except for 22, for onward transmission to those identified for action.
There was also some discussion on item 4.3.3 in the report which referred to the issue of the professional body's approach to assessment which in some respects differed from the University's Code of Assessment. While it was agreed that the department had taken positive action to respond to conflicting requirements from the University and professional bodies, it was suggested that there could be further dialogue with ACCA to ensure that there was no ambiguity over the principles behind the University's Code of Assessment.
Action: Clerk of Senate
ASC/2009/76.2.2 Civil Engineering
ASC received the report of the above departmental review held on 11 and 12 March 2010. Members noted that the high student:staff ratio (25:1) was an underlying issue for the department but this was being addressed as new posts had been approved and were in the process of being filled. It was also noted that the high ratio had resulted from a boom in student numbers in recent years which had followed a period of declining numbers during the 1990s. It seemed this subject area was susceptible to fluctuations in student popularity and recruitment, as current indications were showing the beginnings of another decline in the popularity of the subject.
It was noted that there were significant differences between the wording of recommendations 8 and 11 in main body of the report and the final summary which required to be checked, and recommendation 3 in the summary did not appear in the paragraph referenced in the main report so it was difficult to see how this had arisen.
Action: Senate Office
ASC agreed that the conclusion of paragraph 4.4.1 should be formalised into an additional recommendation. It was also suggested that recommendations 14 and 17 should be actions for the future Head of School to take forward. Subject to these amendments the recommendations were approved for onward transmission to those identified for action.
ASC/2009/76.2.3 Dental School
The Committee received the report of the review of the Dental School which had been held on 25 and 26 March 2010.
Members agreed that this was an extremely positive report with a large number of commendations of good practice in the School. Attention was drawn to recommendation 11 which sought reflection on the position of the Dental School within the new College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences once restructuring had bedded down, suggesting that consideration be given to providing the Head of the Dental School a seat on the College Management Group and/or the Dental School becoming a formal School within the College. ASC strongly endorsed this recommendation.
ASC agreed that further consideration should be given to formulating recommendations in response to the Library issues raised in paragraphs 3.8.8 and 3.8.9 in the report.
Action: Panel Convener and Clerk
Subject to completion of the above action, ASC approved the report and its recommendations for onward transmission to those identified for action.
ASC/2009/76.2.4 Dumfries
ASC received the report of the review of Glasgow University Dumfries campus which had taken place on 18 and 19 February 2010. It was noted that most issues concerned the distance of the campus from Glasgow and the various on-campus agreements between the different institutions operating on the Dumfries campus. The recommendations also reflected these issues.
ASC approved the report and its recommendations for onward transmission to those identified for action.
ASC/2009/76.2.5 HATII
ASC considered the report from the review of the Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute held on 26 February 2010. It was noted that this was a small department with a very high quality of provision. Most recommendations appeared to be aimed at helping staff to deal with high workloads.
ASC approved the report and its recommendations for onward transmission to those identified for action.
ASC/2009/76.2.6 History of Art
ASC received the report of the review of the above department held on 5 February 2010. It was noted that a number of issues regarding Graduate Teaching Assistants had been explored and that there were two recommendations relating to these. It was agreed that recommendation 3 should be withdrawn as the issue of GTA remuneration had been addressed by Human Resources with the introduction of University-wide arrangements for GTA conditions and remuneration.
With the exception of recommendation 3, the report and recommendations were approved for onward transmission to those identified for action.
ASC/2009/76.2.7 Statistics
ASC received the report of the above review held on 11 and 12 February 2010. ASC noted the discussion and recommendation in 4.7.4 and agreed that the issue of encouraging and supporting students to study abroad was common in many departments across the University. ASC welcomed the comments in 4.8.11 highlighting a collegial, active, supportive and friendly department.
The use of the term 'Christian names' was noted in the report, and ASC advised that this was not an appropriate term to use. The term 'forename' could be used in its place.
ASC approved the report and its recommendations for onward transmission to those identified for action.
ASC/2009/76.2.8 Urban Studies
The report of the review of the Department of Urban Studies held on 15 and 16 March 2010 was received. It was noted from the report that the review had been a very positive engagement.
ASC approved the report and its recommendations for onward transmission to those identified for action.
ASC/2009/76.3.1 Archaeology
ASC received the update on progress with recommendations from the above review held in January 2009 and noted that the Panel Convener was satisfied that the recommendations had, as far as possible, been given full and appropriate consideration. Members also noted the Panel Convener's observation regarding recommendation 3 which highlighted the gap in assessment feedback between first and second markers. This practice had, on occasion, led to students receiving conflicting feedback and substantially different grades from the two markers. The Panel Convener observed that students understood that such marks were provisional and subject to internal and external review, and the specific concern was that it was difficult for students to improve if they received conflicting feedback. The Panel Convener noted that although the Department gave valid reasons for remaining of the view that it was better to return the marker's feedback to students promptly rather than delaying it to allow for moderation, the situation was not ideal since the potential for a student to receive conflicting feedback still remained. ASC agreed that on balance it was better for students to receive first marker feedback early.
ASC/2009/76.3.2 English Language
ASC received the update on progress with recommendations from the above review held in February 2009 and noted that while the Panel Convener was satisfied that the recommendations had, as far as possible, been given full and appropriate consideration, he recommended that a further update on recommendations 2 and 4 should be provided to ASC in six months time - November 2010. ASC agreed that updates should be provided on progress with these issues which related to student take up of study abroad opportunities (recommendation 2) and technical support provided by HATII (recommendation 4).
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2009/76.3.3 English Literature
ASC received the update on progress with recommendations from the above review held in March 2009 and noted that these had been reviewed by the Vice Principal (Learning & Teaching) in the absence of the Panel Convener who had retired. It was noted that the Vice Principal was satisfied that the recommendations had, as far as possible, been given full and appropriate consideration and that he wished to congratulate the Department on the progress made so far.
ASC/2009/76.3.4 Mathematics
ASC received the update on progress with recommendations from the above review held in February 2009 and noted that these had been reviewed by the Vice Principal (Learning & Teaching) in the absence of the Panel Convener who had retired. While the Vice Principal was satisfied that the majority of the recommendations had been given full and appropriate consideration, there was discussion surrounding a number of issues.
Firstly, in respect of both recommendations 2 and 11, ASC noted the Department's comments regarding the popularity and unpopularity of teaching staff, and members were concerned that differences in staff popularity could be allowed to hold back enhancement of learning, teaching and student support. The Committee agreed that the Department should undertake a further review of the issues raised in recommendations 2 and 11 and if necessary consider further support/management for colleagues perceived to be unpopular to allow fairness and efficiency in the distribution of workloads.
Secondly, it was noted that the issue of founding a GTA forum (recommendation 7) had not been addressed by the Head of Department, and that the Dean's response suggested that this would best be dealt with at School level. ASC agreed that the Department should provide an update on this matter.
Thirdly, it was noted that the Department had not been able to run small group tutorials in Level 2 due to a lack of small group tutorial rooms (recommendation 8). ASC agreed that this matter should be referred to the Director of Estates and Buildings for a response on the accommodation situation.
Further responses to recommendations 2, 7, 8 and 11 would therefore be requested for reporting to ASC in November 2010.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2009/76.3.5 Mechanical Engineering
ASC received the update on progress with recommendations from the above review held in February 2009 and noted that while the Panel Convener was satisfied that the majority of recommendations had, as far as possible, been given full and appropriate consideration, she suggested that a further update on recommendations 3, 4 and 6 could be provided to ASC in six months time - November 2010. ASC agreed that updates should be provided on progress with these issues which related to the review of the Department's management and committee structure (recommendation 3); implementation of staff workload models (recommendation 4); and sharing of practice on successful innovation in learning and teaching across the Department (recommendation 6).
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2009/76.3.6 Scottish Literature
ASC received the update on progress with recommendations from the above review held in February 2009 and noted that these had been reviewed by the Panel Convener who had been satisfied with some responses but had been concerned about the adequacy of other responses provided.
Following discussion, ASC agreed that a further update should be provided on the following four recommendations in November 2010: Recommendation 1, review of ILOs; Recommendation 2, increasing variation in assessment methods; Recommendation 5, review of the current requirement for students to complete the English Language 1 course; Recommendation 12, encouragement of students to participate in outward ERASMUS exchanges.
Action: Senate Office
In noting the responses to recommendations 8 and 9 which both concerned management of GTA staff, ASC sought confirmation of whether the practice advocated in these recommendations represented University policy on GTA management.
Action: Clerk of Senate
ASC/2009/76.4.1 Classics
The Committee noted the follow up responses for a number of recommendations which had been made at the review of Classics in February 2008. It was agreed that these demonstrated satisfactory progress with the issues.
ASC also noted that the department had provided further information on recommendation 1 concerning serious accommodation constraints for the department. In May 2009 it had been reported that some additional accommodation would become available shortly; however the department reported that this had not occurred, and only a single office for one additional staff member had been made available. ASC agreed that the original recommendation should be re-opened and that priority should be given to providing the department with additional space. This would be raised with the director of Estates and Buildings.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2009/76.4.2 Economic & Social History
ASC noted the update on progress with recommendation 4 concerning group work opportunities for Honours students. This had been made at the review of the department of Economic & Social History held in March 2008 and no further action was considered necessary for this item.
ASC/2009/76.4.3 Economics
The Committee received an update on various responses to recommendations made at the review of Economics in January 2008. The responses were considered to demonstrate satisfactory progress in all but two cases. Recommendation 5 concerned the inclusion of study abroad marks in the calculation of students' final grades. It was noted that the Dean of Faculty's response indicated that consideration of this issue at Faculty level had been deferred until the University-wide Working Group considered formulation of University policy on this issue. It was agreed that the Dean of Learning & Teaching in the College of Social Sciences should provide an update on the College's policy for the conversion of study abroad grades after the University Working Group had concluded its business. It was also agreed that progress with action on recommendation 11 should be provided after re-structuring. This related to the review of PGT programme content. Further updates would therefore be requested for reporting to ASC in November 2010.
Action: Senate Office
ASC received the above validation report for the event held on 13 May 2010 at the Free Church of Scotland College. ASC approved the programme for a period of six years from 2010-11 with the revised title Master of Theology in Scottish Church History and Theology.
ASC received and noted the above report of the meeting of the Liaison Committee held on 27 April 2010. ASC approved the remit and membership of the Committee for 2009-10 and a new member of staff to be recognised as a Teacher of the University.
ASC received and noted the above report of the meeting of the Liaison Committee held on 28 April 2009. ASC approved retrospectively the membership of the Committee for 2008-09 and 10 new members of staff to be recognised as Teachers of the University.
ASC received a report from Dr Williamson, recently appointed Head of Academic and Student Services at Glasgow School of Art, seeking agreement for a number of scheduled validation and revalidation events to be held in June 2010. The statement of intent for the proposed BDes Fashion and Textiles programme was also received. ASC gave in-principle approval for the BDes Fashion and Textiles degree.
ASC also agreed that the following validation and revalidation events should be held in June 2010 and reported to the Convener of ASC for approval under summer powers:
Revalidation:
BEng/MEng Product Design Engineering
BA (Hons) Design, Ceramics
Validation:
MDes in Communication Design/MDes in Graphic Design/MDes in Illustration/MDes in Photography
BDes Fashion and Textiles
ASC received the above validation report for the event held at the SAC in Ayr on 5 May 2010. ASC agreed to approve the MSc/PgDip/PgCert in Countryside Management for six years from session 2010-11 subject to the conditions detailed in the report being met before the programme is delivered.
ASC noted the dates set for next session as follows:
Friday 8 October 2010
Friday 19 November 2010*
Friday 18 February 2011
Wednesday 20 April 2011
Friday 27 May 2011
(*Clerk's note: Due to lack of accommodation, this meeting will be re-scheduled for Monday 22 November 2010.)
The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 8 October 2010 at 9.30 a.m. (venue tbc).
Created by: Ms Helen Butcher