University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Minute of Meeting held on Friday 8 October 2010 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room
Dr Jack Aitken, Professor Graham Caie, Dr Philip Cotton, Ms Tuula Eriksson, Professor Neil Evans, Professor Thomas Guthrie, Mrs Elizabeth Hancock, Mr Matthew Hastings, Professor Bob Hill, Dr Jeremy Huggett, Ms Anna Phelan, Dr Karen Renaud, Dr Bill Stewart, Dr Arthur Whittaker, Professor David Watt (Convener).
In Attendance:Ms Helen Butcher, Mrs Marjory Wright (for item 7.2).
Apologies:Dr Vince Bissell, Dr Frances Boyle, Dr Mike Carroll, Professor Frank Coton, Dr Donald McLeod, Professor Catherine Steel.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as a correct record.
It was noted that information on programme approval for postgraduate degrees containing both taught and research elements was included in the 2010-11 Programme Approval Guidance published on the Senate Office website. The Committee also noted that a meeting with the Convener of the Programme and Course Approval Working Group, College Deans of Learning & Teaching, and colleagues from the Senate Office was being set up for October/November to discuss consistency in scrutiny arrangements at College level.
It was reported that the Senate Office would make contact with the Business School to take forward the action concerning liaison with the Accountancy professional body to offer information on the principles of the Code of Assessment and identify any potential areas of conflict regarding assessment practice between ACCA and the University.
Action: Senate Office
It was noted that the Review report had been corrected and revised in line with the comments noted by ASC in May.
It was noted that the Review Panel Convener had agreed to add new recommendations regarding Library issues as highlighted by ASC.
It was noted that the Clerk of Senate had attended to this item and had confirmed that many departments did not include GTAs at their meetings, and developments in relation to re-structuring would result in revised arrangements at School level. It was recommended that as events had overtaken this issue there was no need to follow this up.
It was noted that a memo had been sent to Estates and Buildings highlighting issue of accommodation constraints with a response requested by 30 January 2010. This would be reported to ASC in February. It was also noted that the issue had been forwarded to the Convener of the Teaching Infrastructure Working Group.
Action: Senate Office
The Convener reminded members of the new arrangements for ASC under the University's new structures. There were now three representatives from each College on the Committee, with the conveners of the various sub groups being ex-officio members. The composition of the Academic Regulations Sub Committee had also been revised to two representatives from each College. In terms of the programme and course approval process, College Boards of Studies (CBoS) now had authority to approve proposals for courses and minor programme amendments, as Faculties had previously; with ASC continuing to have delegated authority from Senate to approve new programmes or major changes following recommendation from CBoS. There continued to be four Programme Approval Groups (PAGs), one for each College each having three members who were ASC representatives from the other Colleges.
The Convener reported that a message had been sent to students advising them of the adoption of a single grade point system from next session and the discontinuation of Schedule C in 2011-12. It was noted these changes would mainly affect first and second year students as their results achieved in the current year would be converted to the new grade point system next year. Given that the new grade points reflected the granularity of the secondary bands, students were encouraged to aim for the highest band in each grade as from next year this would increase their grade point averages.
Professor Guthrie spoke to the above report which covered a number of items.
Joint Honours
The Sub-Committee proposed a revised definition of Joint Honours for inclusion in the University's Glossary of Terms and also the generic undergraduate regulation (from 2011-12). This has arisen following some ambiguity over a student case, and the Committee agreed that a precise 50:50 balance between the two subjects was not always feasible given different credit ratings in different subjects.
ASC approved the following revised definition for Joint Honours:
An Honours degree awarded following successful completion of a 480-credit programme in which two subjects are studied in depth, with at least 120 credits but no more than 140 credits in each subject, and the subjects being normally equally weighted in the calculation of the final classification.1
ASC also confirmed that equal weight should be given to both subjects in the calculation of the final Honours classification and that in cases where the total credits contributing to Honours exceeded 240, all credits (up to a maximum of 280) would contribute to the overall classification but each subject would be weighted as 50%.
ASC agreed that a definition of 'Principal' and 'Subsidiary' programmes should also be drawn up and included in both the Glossary of Terms and generic undergraduate regulation.
Action: Clerk of ARSC
Members also noted the comments from ARSC regarding the operation of Examination Boards for joint honours degrees and agreed with the importance of ensuring that there was sufficient representation from each subject if results were considered sequentially by separate Boards for each subject, particularly at the Board where the final decision on the degree classification was made. It was agreed that further review of practice and regulation in this area was required.
Action: Senate Office
Eligibility for Reassessment
ASC endorsed the principle in the Code of Assessment that when the relevant 'threshold grade' had been achieved, students had no right of reassessment, and agreed that the only exception to this principle should be that offered in 16.13 of the Code of Assessment where reassessment would be provided to give the opportunity to complete a graduating curriculum for an ordinary/designated degree.
Incomplete Assessment on PGT Programmes
A gap in the coverage of the PGT programmes in the Code of Assessment regulations on incomplete assessment and good cause had been identified, and ARSC proposed amendment to 16.52 (see Appendix 1) to ensure that PGT programmes were covered by the provision that credit would only be awarded for courses if 75% or more of the assessment for that individual course had been completed. ASC approved the regulatory revision specified in Appendix 1.
Review of non-generic Masters
ASC noted that the sub-committee had commenced work on this review and it was reported that for each of the non-generic MLitt, MPhil and MSc regulations, there were no programmes approved to run under the relevant schedule for study by prescribed programmes. As these regulations were antiquated it was proposed that they be permanently withdrawn. ASC agreed to the deletion of the following from the University Calendar:
MLitt: Schedule B - study by prescribed programmes
MPhil: Schedule A - study by prescribed programmes
MSc - Schedule B - study by prescribed programmes
ASC also agreed that Schedule C of the MSc regulation - work-based learning - should be deleted if it was confirmed that this schedule was not in use.
Action: Clerk of ARSC
ARSC proposed to review and update the schedules for each of the non-generic MLitt, MPhil and MSc regulations for the award by Research and this would be done in consultation with the Research Planning & Strategy Committee (RPSC) followed by formal reporting of the revised regulation from ASC to RPSC.
ARSC also proposed to review the current non-generic MRes regulation which was currently in use in three Colleges and used for programmes with a combination of taught courses and independent research which fell outwith the framework of the generic PGT regulation. The update to these regulations would be informed by a consultation with co-ordinators of the current programmes which ARSC was planning to undertake.
ASC also noted the non-generic programmes (see Appendix 2) where there was no scope for rationalising or updating the regulations - these were programmes which were awarded jointly with other institutions, or had non-standard requirements (e.g. 260 credits for the award).
Action Arising from FQAEO Annual Monitoring Report (2008-09)
One of the actions from the above report considered by ASC in May had been for ARSC to take forward the 'need for an evaluation as to whether the new Code of Assessment is being applied effectively' by establishing the background to the comment and then deciding on any possible action to be taken. Although steps had been taken to investigate what lay behind the comment from the former Faculty of Law, Business & Social Sciences, no firm information had been established. ARSC had also been advised by the Senate Office that some External Examiner reports had raised issues about the application of the Code of Assessment and further information on External Examiner feedback was therefore being sought in order to determine any necessary action. It was suggested that securing a good understanding of the Code by External Examiners could be a more significant issue than the substance of the Code itself.
Timing and Duration of Examinations
ASC also noted that the sub-committee had given initial consideration to the issues raised at its previous meeting in May regarding the regulations on the timing and duration of examinations and that following further work outcomes would be reported to ASC in due course.
ASC received a proposal from Nursing for the introduction of a four year MSci in Nursing. Approval was being sought in principle, following which a detailed proposal would be put forward to the College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences and thereafter to the Programme Approval Group.
After consideration of the proposal ASC decided against endorsing the proposal for a 4 year MSci as there was agreement that this was an insufficient period within which to deliver this type of degree. The following points contributed to this decision.
-
Members noted that although there was provision in the Generic Undergraduate Regulation for 4 year MSci degrees, there were none running at present and the small number which had been approved in the past had been withdrawn because experience had shown that students found it difficult to complete the degree requirements within 4 years.
-
It was noted that the current BN involved 540 credits over 4 years and the Committee felt an increase to 635 credits in the same amount of time for the MSci would be unmanageable for students (as it had been in other areas).
-
The proposed progression requirement of B1, and the reason for such a high threshold were noted; however members also noted that the standard progression for Integrated Masters in the Generic Regulation was C3.
-
It was noted that integrated Masters degrees in Nursing were offered by both the University of the West of Scotland (5 years) and the University of Nottingham (4 years) but in both cases the integrated Masters required an additional year's study compared to the Honours degree.
The Committee received information on responses which had been received to the actions which had been identified in the above report which had been received by ASC in May 2010.
Members were advised that the various items relating to the academic year structure (including the correct use of revision week) would be covered by the comprehensive review of the new academic year which was to be undertaken by the Academic Structures Implementation Group during semester 1. It was also noted that issues about the quality of teaching space would be taken as a core issue for the new Academic Infrastructure Group which was being led by the Vice Principal (Learning & Teaching). The responses from RIO relating to PGT admissions procedures were noted, and members noted further than in some academic disciplines international qualifications in what appeared to be the same field needed to be considered by academic staff in order to confirm that they were suitable for entry to postgraduate study in the discipline.
One response was awaited - from the convener of the Medical Ethics committee (the previous convener having departed in the summer) - this would be followed up and reported to ASC once it was available.
Members also noted that a number of actions required follow-up or redirection to other areas (for example the Head of the College of MVLS would be invited to provide proposals for refurbishment of microscopy space in the Dental School to Estates & Buildings).
The responses would also be fed back to the former Faculty Quality Assurance & Enhancement Officers and new Quality Officers to be appointed in the current academic session.
Action: Clerk
The Director of the Senate Office introduced this report which included a proposal for devolved annual monitoring whereby the management of annual monitoring would be centred on Colleges. It was proposed that Quality Officers should be appointed at College and School level (see Appendix 3 for the roles of each) and a revised annual reporting process should be introduced.
In terms of reporting, it was proposed that streamlined annual monitoring reports would be submitted to School Quality Officers (SQOs) who would then prepare a School Annual Monitoring Summary which evaluated the effectiveness of annual monitoring in the School and reported on the School's progress in relation to both the College Learning & Teaching Plan and the University's Learning & Teaching Strategy. College Quality Officers (CQOs) would receive the School reports and use these to prepare the CQO's Report for ASC which would report on the effectiveness of the College's annual monitoring procedures, evaluate the standard and consistency of annual monitoring at School level, and identify actions for the College, or particular Schools, and those requiring addressing centrally by the University. It was also proposed that the following auditing procedures be established:
-
College Quality Officers to randomly sample the course and programme AMRs submitted to the School Quality Officer;
-
ASC to randomly sample the School Annual Monitoring Summary reports submitted to College Quality Officers.
The Committee agreed that the above proposals would enhance the current process by allowing a better integration of quality management with College learning and teaching strategy, planning and practice, and also improve efficiency through the development of more streamlined reports and reporting mechanisms. Members welcomed the revised focus of the forms and their streamlining.
ASC therefore approved the new roles of College Quality Officer and School Quality Officer as detailed in Appendix 3 and the revised reporting and auditing arrangements as detailed above.
ASC also approved the proposal that the Faculty Quality Assurance and Enhancement Officers Group be replaced by a Quality Officers Forum (QOF) comprising the four CQOs together with members of the Senate Office and two representatives from the SRC. Interim arrangements for the central scrutiny of the annual monitoring reports from session 2009-10 would also be developed by this group and a summary report prepared for ASC.
The Committee received an extract from the University's ELIR Action Plan which had been discussed at its recent Learning & Teaching Conference. The paper included all actions which had been identified as involving quality process and these had been subdivided into actions for which ASC was directly responsible, those which involved some ASC process, and others which required noting by ASC.
In terms of the actions for ASC, the following was discussed:
Action 2: Exam Board discretion
The ELIR report strongly encouraged the University to review the Code of Assessment in respect of its regulation and guidance on how Examination Boards should exercise discretion when classifying borderline honours degree candidates as it was noted that there had been limited guidance and significant variation in the extent to which Faculties had explicit policies on this area.
ASC agreed that a Short-Life Working Group, composed of the four College Deans of Learning & Teaching (or their nominees) and convened by Professor Guthrie, should be formed to take forward this recommendation and to consider the introduction of University guidance (or regulation) on how Boards of Examiners may exercise discretion in borderline cases to ensure consistent application of existing good practice. The SLWG would be asked to report its conclusions and recommendations to ASC in February 2010.
Action: Senate Office
Action 6: Setting and Maintaining Academic Standards
In the Reflective Analysis presented to the ELIR team, the University had undertaken to further streamline undergraduate degree regulations, consider development of a generic PGR Masters regulation, develop and implement an assessment policy and review policy on the use of plagiarism software.
The Committee noted that since the ELIR visits, the Academic Regulations Sub-Committee (ARSC) had made further progress in harmonising undergraduate degree regulations, with the expansion of the Generic Undergraduate Regulation in the 2010-11 Calendar to cover more items e.g. requirements for entry to Honours and Honours assessment weightings.
It was also noted that ARSC had begun its work to review PGR Masters regulations and consider the development of a generic PGR Masters regulation - see minute ASC/2010/4. ASC also noted that the assessment and plagiarism software policies had been developed by other committees.
Action 32: Consistency of programme scrutiny
The ELIR report had noted the recommendations from the internal audit on programme approval and that the issue of consistency across faculties in the initial review and authorisation of proposals was now under consideration.
Members noted that this matter would be taken forward by the Programme and Course Approval Working Group (PCAWG) and that the Convener planned to meet with College Deans of Learning & Teaching to discuss consistency of the scrutiny process at College level in the near future, as noted in ASC/2010/2.1.
Action: Senate Office
Action 33: External input to programme development/scrutiny
The ELIR report encouraged the University to review its guidance (and therefore process) on the role of external contributions in the programme approval process. Members were reminded that the matter of external input to programme development and scrutiny had been considered in detail when the QAA had consulted on its redraft of Section 7 of the Code of Practice, and the University's view had been that external examiners were suitable individuals to approach in the process of external consultation in the development and approval of new or existing courses and programmes. However, the final publication of Section 7 of the Code of Practice retained its cautionary advice about the use of external examiners and the ELIR panel had also drawn attention to 'the potential for compromising impartiality when the external contribution comes predominantly from an existing external examiner'.
ASC agreed that PCAWG should review of this aspect of the programme approval process and submitted proposals to ASC at its meeting in February 2010.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2010/8.1.1 Chemistry
The Committee received a report on the responses to recommendations in the Review Report for Chemistry which had been approved by ASC in October 2009. It was noted that the Convener of the Panel had reviewed the responses and had expressed concern that a number of recommendations had not been resolved eighteen months after the review. The Panel Convener had drawn attention to six of the recommendations in particular where progress was considered to be slow; and while members of ASC agreed that it appeared that no firm actions had been taken in these areas, it was suggested that in some cases the School was reliant on other departments or services in the University to assist and could not progress the matter on its own. Recommendations 6 (relating to the improvement of AV equipment) and 18 (requiring a review of the School's annual monitoring process) were highlighted in this regard.
ASC noted the further recommendations highlighted by the Panel Convener involved the following areas: operation and remit of the School Teaching Committee(3); review of strategy for enhancing progression (4); dialogue with staff regarding incentivising departmental innovation (5); review of assessment feedback processes (9); development of preparation for students for non-traditional assignments (10).
ASC/2010/8.2.1 2009-10: Summary of Recommendations
The Committee received a summary of recommendations which had been made by DPTLA Review Panels in Session 2009-10 and noted that requests to relevant areas had been made for individual recommendations to be actioned. Given that a number of recommendations had been made regarding support for probationary members of staff, ASC agreed that given recent changes in personnel associated with the University restructuring the Human Resources department should be asked to issue a reminder to Heads of School detailing the respective responsibilities of Colleges, Schools and University Services in providing support for probationary members of staff, including workload allocation, training and mentoring opportunities.
Action: Senate Office
ASC noted the remaining recommendations detailed in the report which had been grouped under the themes of Resources for Learning and Teaching, and Assessment, Feedback and Achievement. Members noted the initiatives relating to Assessment and agreed that providing information to students to manage their expectations of the assessment process was an important action.
ASC/2010/8.2.2 2009-10: Summary of Good Practice / Key Strengths
The Committee considered a report which identified themes of good practice arising from the 2009-10 DPTLA reviews. Key strengths and areas of good practice had been identified from an analysis of the reports for each event held in 2009-10. The report also highlighted key strengths which it proposed to be worthy of further dissemination; these fell predominantly under the areas of student experience and the learning environment, and employability.
ASC agreed that the undernoted items of good practice/key strengths should be disseminated, noting that further information on these items would be sought from the subject areas concerned to provide context, and then published on the Senate Office website and also drawn to the Learning & Teaching Centre for further dissemination where appropriate.
-
The range of effective and appropriate assessment methods, such as: presentations, debates, group projects, problem-based learning, essays, and dissertations and the feedback viva in 'Issues in Contemporary Society' for engagement of students with the feedback they received (DUMF);
- Assignment guidance sheets used by the Department (CENG);
-
Production of independent and reflective learners through use of formative assignments (DENT);
-
The Department's concern for, and awareness of employability of its graduates, which it promotes through its strong links with potential employers (STAT);
- The introduction of an employability Finishing School (DUMF);
-
The commitment to employability and the inclusion of a large practical element to all courses and programmes, demonstrating academic and professional engagement (HATII);
- Engaging Industry personnel to assist in tutorials (CENG);
-
The provision of high quality engaging teaching, embedded in real world policy and practice, leading to well qualified, employable graduates (URBS);
-
Committed approach to students' learning experience that includes many examples of good practice and innovation in the delivery of teaching, learning and assessment in a mathematically intensive environment (STAT);
- Use of case studies and tools within teaching (e.g. DataStream) (ACFIN);
-
Integrative approach to review process (DENT);
-
The informal and supportive approach by the Department to its staff and students, inculcating a warm and friendly atmosphere that facilitated social interaction (STAT);
- Sense of community and camaraderie (DENT);
- The real appreciation by its students of their learning experience, and recognition of the value of their inter-disciplinary courses (DUMF);
-
The conscious effort made by the Department to harness the breadth of these [different disciplinary] backgrounds and experiences to enhance students' collective learning experience and break down professional boundaries (URBS);
- Engagement with the research and local community, for example (DUMF):
Schools-based initiatives - e.g. Crichton Challenge, a debating competition; and Schools 'taster days' introducing school pupils to the University experience;
- Informative, easy to navigate website that included a video on student experiences (STAT);
- The accessibility of the Department's programmes to students from a diverse range of experiences and backgrounds, and the support provided by staff to this diverse group (URBS);
- Student support mechanisms (DENT);
- Successful recruitment of international students to postgraduate taught programmes (ACFIN);
- Engagement with applicants during recruitment process (ACFIN);
- The rapid and strategic development of postgraduate taught provision and international collaborative arrangements (ACFIN);
-
The support provided to Graduate Teaching Assistants and the Department's integration of them into a broad range of the Department's activities (URBS).
Key to departmental abbreviations:
HART History of Art
STAT Statistics
DUMF Dumfries Campus
ACFIN Accounting and Finance
HATII Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute
CENG Civil Engineering
URBS Urban Studies
DENT Dental School
ASC agreed to recommend to EdPSC the revised remit and composition for Session 2010-11 (see Appendix 4). This took account of changes arising from the University's restructuring, the substance of the remit however remained unchanged.
ASC approved the proposed membership for 2010-11 for recommending to EdPSC (see Appendix 5).
ASC approved the proposed membership of its four PAGs for 2010-11. Each PAG covered one College and was composed of three academic representatives (one from each of the other Colleges).
Members noted the dates in Semester 1 and 2 when PAG meetings would be scheduled if proposals were forthcoming from the Colleges.
ASC was also asked to consider special arrangements for the current session given the University's strategic priority in developing international student numbers and the current target of introducing two new PGT degrees in each School for the 2011-12 intake. It was agreed that to allow more chance of programmes gaining full approval in time for marketing in January 2011, special meetings of PAGs would also be scheduled for mid December 2010, and any proposals approved by the PAGs would be considered for final approval by the Convener of ASC and Clerk of Senate out of committee.
Action: Senate Office
ASC received the above report of the Joint Board meeting held on 2 June 2010. The remit and membership for the Board for 2010-11 was approved.
It was noted that the Validation report for the MTh in Scottish Church History and Theology as approved by ASC had been accepted by the Joint Board with two clarifications made regarding the maximum number of students and the availability of resits on the BTh degree. The finalised structure of the degree was also reported as:
- Three, 35-credit directed-reading courses, assessed by three 3,000 word essays each; and
- A 15-credit Research and Study Skills module, to be assessed by a book review and seminar paper or equivalent.
The report of the above meeting held on 11 June 2010 was received. ASC approved the remit and membership for the Board for 2010-11. The remainder of the report was noted, including the minor changes agreed for the MLitt and MA (Hons) programmes.
ASC received and noted a report detailing new programmes and major changes to programmes approved by the Convener and Clerk of Senate under summer powers either following fast-track scrutiny, carry forward from the Semester 2 PAGs or, in the case of GSA degrees, specific validation events.
The following programmes were approved for 2010-11.
College of Arts
MLitt Dress & Textile History
MPhil Textile Conservation*
MRes Arts
* This two year programme also included an MSc exit point after one year. Following the 120 taught courses, students who successfully undertook a 60 credit summer placement, assessed as independent work, could exit with an MSc (180 credits).
College of Social Sciences
LLM Contemporary Law and Practice
MEd Religious Studies
MSc International Planning and Urban Policy
MEd Children's Literature and Literacies
MRes Criminology for ESRC
MRes Equality and Human Rights for ESRC
MRes Human Rights and International Politics
MRes International Politics [retitled from MSc in International Politics (Research)]
MSc International Politics (China) [replacing MSc China in the International Arena]
MRes Political Communication
MSc Financial Modelling
PgCert Strategic Leadership
College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences
Graduate Certificate in Burns and Plastic Surgery Care for Adults and Paediatrics
CPD Diploma in Oral Maxillofacial Surgery
CPD Diploma in Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics
Bachelor of Health Studies (Introduction of Exit Award from the Bachelor of Nursing)
College of Science & Engineering
MSc Applied Population & Statistical Mapping
MSc Astrophysics
MSc Landscape Monitoring & Mapping
MSc Physics: Advanced Materials
MSc Physics: Energy & Environment
MSc Physics: Life Sciences
MSc Physics: Global Security
MSc Theoretical Physics
Glasgow School of Art
New Programmes
BDes Fashion and Textiles
MDes in Communication Design / MDes in Graphic Design / MDes in Illustration / MDes in Photography
Revalidation
BA (Hons) Design, Ceramics
BEng / MEng Product Design Engineering
Approval was also granted for a new part-time route on the MRes Creative Practices. This would be reviewed as part of the full-time MRes Creative Practices revalidation in 2011/12.
The following regulatory amendment was also approved under summer powers and included in the 2010-11 Generic Undergraduate regulation (17.1): the current requirement of a minimum of grade D3 in the Honours dissertation or other independent work (at least 20 credits) was applied to Integrated Masters degrees (MSci and MEng).
The report also detailed two items which had been referred to the Senate Office by the Social Sciences Fast-track PAG:
-
The PAG noted a general tendency for the content of section 15 of the Programme Specification to be of variable relevance. Members were of the view that, for the most part, the standard reference to student support services was sufficient. One option could be to include the student support information as a default within PIP, as it was generic and appropriate to all programmes. The PAG resolved that this section of the programme specification could usefully be reviewed by the Senate Office.
-
In section A5 of the Programme Proposal Support document, there is a check box for confirmation that there has been consideration of equal opportunity, employability, disability and ethnic issues. The Programme Proposal Support form does not currently invite any elaboration as to how such issues have been given consideration and PAG members observed that although the box is always checked, there was a risk of a tokenistic response. The PAG resolved that the Senate Office should be asked to reconsider how this aspect of the Programme Proposal Support document could become more meaningful.
The report confirmed that item 1 was being reviewed by the Senate Office and item 2 would be referred to the Programme and Course Approval Working Group for consideration.
Action: Senate Office
There were no items of reserved business.
The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Monday 22 November 2010 at 9.30 a.m. in the Melville Room.
Created by: Ms Helen Butcher