University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Minute of Meeting held on Monday 22 November 2010 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room
Dr Jack Aitken, Professor Graham Caie, Dr Mike Carroll, Ms Tuula Eriksson, Professor Thomas Guthrie, Mrs Elizabeth Hancock, Professor Bob Hill, Dr Donald McLeod, Dr Karen Renaud, Dr Bill Stewart, Dr Arthur Whittaker, Professor David Watt (Convener).
In Attendance:Ms Helen Butcher, Dr Frances Boyle.
Apologies:Dr Vince Bissell, Professor Frank Coton, Dr Philip Cotton, Professor Neil Evans, Mr Matthew Hastings, Dr Jeremy Huggett, Ms Anna Phelan, Professor Catherine Steel.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as a correct record.
ASC received an update on the Clerk of Senate's dialogue with colleagues in the Business School regarding the matter of potential conflict in assessment practice between the University and professional bodies. It was confirmed that the original issue highlighted in the DPTLA report (ACCA's requirement of a 3 hour examination) had been resolved by the introduction of a one hour class test in addition to the 2 hour examination. A number of other areas had been highlighted to the Clerk of Senate: percentage marking, limits on compensation both between and within courses and higher attainment thresholds for specific courses/subjects. In each case it was noted that these could be accommodated in the Code of Assessment. External Examiner criticism of the Code was also noted; this general issue was considered in more detail under minute ASC/2010/19.
ASC noted that the responses received at the previous meeting had been disseminated to former FQAE Officers and would also be circulated to the new Quality Officers appointed this session. It was also noted that one response - from the Convener of the Medical Ethics Committee - remained outstanding.
It was noted that Human Resources had been notified of their action to disseminate details of probationary arrangements for academic staff to Heads of School.
It was noted that no standard Semester 1 Programme Approval Groups had been convened for November 2010, although special December PAGs were planned to consider proposals from the Colleges of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences and Science & Engineering.
It was noted that actions which had been identified in this report relating to programme documentation (programme specifications and proposal support documents) would be taken forward by the Programme and Course Approval Working Group which would report to ASC in February 2011.
Professor Guthrie introduced the report which presented a number of proposals for ASC to consider regarding regulatory amendments.
Principal with Subsidiary degrees
Following ASC's approval of a definition of Joint Honours, ARSC had been asked to propose a definition of Principal with Subsidiary degrees for inclusion in the Calendar and Glossary of Terms. ARSC reported that this structure was currently only in use in the College of Social Sciences and applied to Principal subjects that were taken 'with' a Subsidiary language, the latter comprising 60 credits of the overall Honours programme.
The following definition was proposed to ASC:
Principal with Subsidiary Honours: An Honours degree awarded following successful completion of a 480-credit programme. From the total of credits studied on the Honours programme, normally 180 will be in one subject with 60 in another, the weighting in the programme's scheme of assessment reflecting the respective credit values of the two subjects.1
While ASC agreed with the substance of the proposal presented, it was agreed that the second sentence should be amended to clarify that the Honours programme credits referred to were those gained in years 3 and 4 (given the reference to the full 480 credits in the first sentence).
Action: Senate Office
Comments on Code of Assessment in External Examiners' Reports
The Sub-Committee had considered a digest of extracts from External Examiners' reports 2009-10 which referred to the Code of Assessment and it was noted that comments on the Code of Assessment had been identified in 14 reports. This was from 286 reports which had been submitted to date (out of an expected total of 464).
From the 14 comments, the following had been noted:
-
- Seven External Examiners stated that they found the marking scheme used by Glasgow complicated/confusing/not fit for purpose;
- Six raised issues regarding the application of discretion in honours classification;
- Two expressed concern regarding the rounding of marks, with the suggestion that in some cases this led to inappropriate final degree classifications;
- Other issues included: the use of orals in borderline cases; the award of credit for courses where a grade of less than D was achieved; and the low proportion of firsts awarded.
ASC agreed with the Sub-Committee's view was that the number of concerns raised was relatively small and therefore did not indicate widespread concern about whether the Code was being applied effectively. ASC also agreed that the Guide to the Code of Assessment (which was routinely sent to Examiners) gave a clear explanation of the marking scheme used at Glasgow which, it was acknowledged, would be unfamiliar to many new External Examiners. ASC did not favour the idea of producing a 'quick guide' to the Code given the risk of missing essential information.
The Committee was presented with further details of the concerns which had been raised by two External Examiners on rounding of grades. One of these focused on the fact that there were several stages in which marks were rounded and that at some points rounding was to two decimal places while at others it was one. The response gave the example of a student whose high 2:1 marks had all been rounded up which pushed the overall mean into the discretionary range for a 1st, and that this classification had then been awarded on the basis of preponderance.
It was agreed that, given the issues raised, ARSC should be invited to review the rounding processes included in the Code of Assessment and report back to ASC. It was also noted that the implementation of preponderance noted in the above comment was not part of the Code and there was therefore some concern that External Examiners might be being misled regarding the requirements of the Code of Assessment. Members also noted that the current rounding procedures in the Code had been included to ensure that there was transparency for students with primary grades and secondary bands being issued for all course results. It was agreed that it was essential that consideration of any revision to the rounding process took into account the consequences regarding the availability of grade/band information to students.
Action: ARSC
Reassessment in Postgraduate Certificates and Diplomas
ASC was advised that while the Code of Assessment defined the 'threshold grade' which determined whether students had the right to be reassessed as C for taught masters degrees, no definition was given for the threshold grade in relation to postgraduate certificates and diplomas.
ASC agreed that the threshold grade for reassessments on PGCerts and PGDips should also be defined as C (with capping at C3), while noting that the actual requirement for award would remain at D. This would allow students the opportunity to progress, in due course, to a related Masters programme as they would have satisfied the relevant progress requirement, which was an average grade equivalent to a grade C.
The Code of Assessment would therefore require a minor addition to reflect this decision.
Action: Senate Office
Reassessment opportunities for coursework
ASC was reminded of previous discussion on the issue of limits on the opportunities for reassessment of coursework and the accepted view, reflected in the Code of Assessment, that, wherever practicable, reassessment of coursework should be offered and any restrictions needed to be publicised in advance. The Sub-Committee recommended that this position be strengthened further, and ASC agreed that the regulations on reassessment should be amended to state that students would have the opportunity to be reassessed on their coursework, and that this opportunity should be available in the same session. The regulations should also state that where, exceptionally, this was considered not to be possible, approval by the Head of School would be required. Members also agreed that in circumstances, such as group projects, where there were approved exceptions, these should be explicitly stated in course information documents
Action: Senate Office
Right to reassessment in all course components
It was reported to ASC that the current reassessment regulations which confined students' reassessment opportunities to only those components of the course assessment where the threshold grade had not been achieved had been challenged by colleagues in the Business School. A point of principle had been raised regarding the extent to which compensation across assessment components was permitted at first and subsequent diets. An example was given of two students who achieved the same poor result for coursework (F1), but one gained a D3 in the exam and the other an E2. It was pointed out that if both resubmitted the coursework but failed to improve their grade, the first student (who was marginally better) would be disadvantaged by the current regulations as s/he would not be permitted to resit the exam (D3), whereas the second student could achieve the threshold grade for the course by re-sitting the exam and gaining a C2.
In acknowledging this problem, the Sub-Committee report also noted that allowing students to be reassessed in all components of a course where their overall grade was below the threshold would have significant consequences, e.g. in terms of staff workload associated with additional assessment and in the greater complexity of advising students about their reassessment options.
In considering this issue ASC deliberated on the fairness of allowing re-assessment of any or all components of assessments where the overall threshold grade had not been achieved, given that this would result in students with the same grade in an individual assessment component having different reassessment opportunities depending on their overall course grade. It was concluded that any perceived disadvantage to students who achieved the overall threshold grade at the first attempt not being allowed any reassessment of below threshold components would be offset by the grade point capping of the course which would be applied to students who undertook reassessment of any components. While acknowledging that there would be practical issues (see above paragraph) in giving students eligibility to be reassessed in all components of assessment when the threshold grade for a course had not been attained, ASC considered it to be fairer in principle.
It was therefore agreed that the reassessment regulations should be revised to allow students the opportunity to be reassessed in any or all components of assessment when they failed to attain the course threshold grade at the first attempt. This provision should not however allow students to select reassessment opportunities sequentially (i.e. select a further reassessment in a component following a poor reassessment result in a different component).
Action: Senate Office
Other reported items
ASC noted that the Sub-Committee had considered the matter highlighted in the FQAEO Report on annual monitoring regarding the need for an evaluation of whether the Code of Assessment was being applied effectively. Further investigation had revealed that this had arisen from a concern regarding the relatively low proportion of A grades being awarded in some level 1 and 2 courses in the former Faculty of LBSS. The Sub-Committee therefore suggested that it would be timely to disseminate guidance on making use of the full marking scale and ASC agreed that communication with academic staff on this matter should be taken forward.
Action: Senate Office
Finally, ASC noted the membership of the Sub-Committee and also the forthcoming items which it was due to consider and report back on: Duration of examinations; revised MRes regulations and outcomes from on-going review of Masters regulations; rules/guidelines for the administration of Joint Honours exam boards.
Dr Whittaker introduced the report of a meeting he had held with Deans of Learning & Teaching to consider the programme approval process at College level. This was in the context of the Internal Audit recommendation which had noted variation in practice in the initial review of new programme proposals in the old Faculties prior to referral to the PAGs, and had sought identification of areas of good practice and possible standardisation of approach.
Each of the Colleges had reported on their practice in considering new programme proposals prior to referral to the PAGs (ASC) and these were detailed in the report (see Appendix 1). It was noted that these new procedures (introduced in the new College structure) showed continuing variation in practice between different areas of the University (now at College, rather than Faculty level). All proposals were considered by College Boards of Studies prior to submission to the PAGs, but the number of Boards of Studies per College and the route to submission to the Boards of Studies were variable. ASC was advised that the Deans of Learning & Teaching had not considered diversity of practice to be necessarily a negative point, and they considered that the variations could be justified academically, as different Colleges had different needs due to their structural differences. The Programme & Course Approval Group also believed that to date, the University's procedures, while allowing for flexibility, were sufficiently robust as they ultimately ensured that only good programmes were introduced.
ASC accepted the recommendation that Colleges should implement the procedures as detailed in the paper (see Appendix 1) in the current session, and that these should be monitored by the PAGs. In addition, Deans of Learning & Teaching would be encouraged to review the operation of procedures, and to monitor consistency of practice within their own Colleges.
It was agreed that Dr Whittaker should meet again with Deans of Learning & Teaching, prior to the May meeting of ASC, to review procedures in light of the experience in the current session in order to address any difficulties or remove any unnecessary layers of scrutiny. This would be reported back to ASC before the end of the session.
Action: Senate Office & AW
ASC considered and gave approval in principle to the proposed introduction of a three year integrated LLB/LLM degree in the School of Law.
The proposal would be taken through the normal programme approval procedures, and if approved would be introduced in 2011-12.
It was noted that the three year programme would be composed of the existing fast track (2 year) LLB which was only open to graduates, and the existing LLM. The rationale for developing a combined three year package was to appeal to the North American and, particularly, the US market where students were required to have studied Law (as postgraduates) for three years before they could take the Bar Exams allowing entry to the legal profession. A combined LLB/LLM would satisfy this requirement and could therefore be marketed as a package.
The Committee received and noted the current six year timetable for Periodic Subject Reviews (PSR) from 2010-11 up to 2015-16. It was noted that reviews had been organised either by School, or by appropriate groupings of academic subject area.
Members received a paper detailing the PSR reports due to be received by ASC during the current session, and members were advised of their allocation of specific reports to review in particular detail.
The role of the ASC reviewer was also recapitulated to advise new members of procedure. ASC Reviewers were required to check their report to identify any issues or recommendations (typically those which would enhance the quality of the University's taught provision) which would relate to other areas of the University and therefore may need wider dissemination. Reviewers were also required to consider Update reports in order to confirm the PSR Panel Convener's view regarding the appropriateness and completeness of the reported responses to the recommendations.
ASC/2010/22.3.1 Economics
ASC received an update on responses to two recommendations which had arisen from the above review held in January 2008. The first recommendation (5) related to the need for the School to include marks from study abroad in students' final grades. Action had been taken by the previous Dean of Faculty to introduce consistent practice in the conversion of marks from study abroad, but this had been ongoing and further progress had been postponed until the work of the new University-wide Working Group had been completed. It was agreed that a further update on the University Working Group's conclusions should be provided to ASC by May 2010.
Action: Senate Office
The second recommendation (11) related to the need for a review of PGT programme structures in Economics to eliminate possible duplication of content and allow students full flexibility of choice. The responses showed that steps had been taken to engage with this process, however it had been agreed in May that any re-structuring of PGT provision should be deferred until after the University re-structuring in August 2010 and since then strategic responsibility for PGT programmes had transferred to College level. ASC noted that the College would be undertaking a broader audit and analysis of PGT provision over the next year. It was therefore agreed that an update on the College of Social Sciences' review of PGT provision in the context of addressing recommendation 11 for Economics should be submitted to ASC in 12 months time - to the November meeting in 2011.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2010/22.3.2 English Language
ASC received an update on responses to two recommendations which had arisen from the above review held in February 2009. Members were satisfied that responses were well in hand for both recommendation 2 (student take up of study abroad opportunities) and recommendation 4 (technical support provided by HATII).
ASC/2010/22.3.3 Mathematics
ASC received an update on responses to four recommendations which had arisen from the above review held in February 2009. Members were satisfied that progress was being made with each of the recommendations which covered: monitoring student demand and closure of unpopular Level 3 and 4 courses: staff review and feedback to GTAs; reverting to small group tutorials at Levels 1 and 2; review of advisory and support mechanisms for students.
ASC 2010/22.3.4 Mechanical Engineering
ASC received an update on responses to three recommendations which had arisen from the above review held in February 2009. ASC accepted the responses for recommendations 4 and 6 concerning implementation of staff workload models, and sharing practice on successful innovation in learning and teaching across the subject. Recommendation 3 had sought promotion of two-way communication between leaders and staff through a review of the management and committee structure in the department. The update reported on the formation of a unified School of Engineering with a single Learning & Teaching Committee to take a strategic overview of teaching. ASC was uncertain as to how this development would facilitate two-way communication between leaders and staff particularly as the Mechanical Engineering discipline was now part of a larger School. It was agreed that this should be drawn to the attention of the Head of School and Convener of the Learning & Teaching Committee with a request for clarification of how two-way communication between leaders and staff would be facilitated.
Action: Senate Office
ASC 2010/22.3.5 Scottish Literature
ASC received an update on responses to six recommendations which had arisen from the above review held in February 2009. ASC noted that some progress had been made with recommendations 1, 2 and 12 which related to: review of Intended Learning Outcomes; increasing the variety of assessment methods*; encouragement of outgoing ERASMUS students.
*Further advice on this should be sought from the Learning & Teaching Centre, rather than the Senate Office.
Attention was drawn to the updated response to recommendation 5 which had sought a review of the compulsory status of the English Language 1 course as a prerequisite to Single Honours Scottish Literature. Members noted that there was a clear indication in the response that English Language 1 should remain compulsory, however it was agreed that a fuller rationale for this decision should be sought from the Head of School.
Action: Senate Office
It was also noted that the Clerk of Senate had provided a response to recommendations 8 and 9 concerning GTA involvement on committees and GTA inclusion in the Performance and Development Review structure. ASC accepted that these issues had been considered on a wider basis in the context of University restructuring and therefore further follow-up in relation to this particular Review was not required.
Dr Aitken introduced a discussion paper concerning the required amount of study at the University in the context of awarding joint or double/multiple degrees involving partner institutions. Members were reminded that Senate had agreed that collaborative agreements where students would receive double/multiple degrees would be considered on the same basis as comparable academic collaborations such as joint degrees. Such proposals would be considered by Senate following recommendation from the Research Planning & Strategy Committee (RPSC) or Education Policy & Strategy Committee (EdPSC).
In considering the minimum amount of study required at the University of Glasgow for the award of such degrees, attention was drawn to the University's Guidelines for the Accreditation of Prior Learning where the normal minimum amount of study to permit the award of a Glasgow degree was 50% of the total - normally calculated in terms of credits. It was also noted that these guidelines explicitly did not apply to awards made with other institutions which operated under joint Memoranda of Agreement.
Members considered that generally the 50% guideline was useful when students were seeking awards from Glasgow, having only completed part of their studies here. It was noted that double degrees were legally more straightforward to set up than joint degrees, particularly in the international context, and although they involved some double counting of study as more than one award was gained, they would be part of an agreement between a number of prestigious institutions in recognition of their common ground. It was also pointed out that student transcripts would clearly show the pattern of study which had been undertaken in order to gain the degrees.
In considering the specific questions presented in the paper, the Committee suggested the following principles for the award of double/multiple degrees:
- Glasgow degrees should not be awarded where students had no engagement with the University;
- involvement in a degree would be defined as the amount of credit gained for Undergraduate and PGT study, and for PGR the amount of supervision where the UoG supervisor was first or co-supervisor;
- at undergraduate level the minimum level of engagement should normally be at least 240 credits;
- for postgraduate taught degrees (typically of the 4 semester, 240 credit structure), the minimum level of engagement should normally be at least 120 credits at UoG;
- PhD degrees could be awarded where the UoG supervisor had substantial input, or where there was significant attendance at UoG.
Members agreed that, with the approval of Senate, there could be exceptions to the minimum levels of engagement specified above. It was noted that the discussion paper would also be submitted to the College Deans of Graduate Studies and also RSPC for consideration.
Dr Aitken introduced the paper which summarised current activity and developments relating to quality matters both nationally and within the University. Members were advised of the conclusions of the QAA's recent review/consultation on its Academic Infrastructure. It was noted that there was sector acceptance that the Academic Infrastructure was a useful framework for considering academic matters and it was unlikely that any significant changes would be proposed. The current context where there was a need to reassure the wider public that standards were being maintained in Higher Education was highlighted and there had been suggestions that the QAA could play a stronger role in promoting the academic standards and academic quality of UK HE.
ASC noted the current review of the External Examiner system being undertaken by Universities UK which was expected to report its conclusions and recommendations in December 2010. The University had submitted its response to this consultation and had supported the proposals which sought to make clear the robust maintenance of standards inherent in the system, and also proposed the possibility of national training for external examiners, and national pay rates.
Also in the national context, it was noted that QAA had initiated a review of the Scottish Quality Enhancement Framework (which includes ELIR as one of its five parts). Recommendations were to be produced for final approval by the Scottish Funding Council by September 2011. Members noted that this was not expected to lead to any significant changes to the process, and that much focus would be made on assurance of academic quality and standards within the context of increasing financial constraint across the sector.
Internally, it was noted that progress was being made with the implementation of the ELIR Action Plan (details of which had been received at the previous meeting) and also that good progress had been made with the appointment and induction of College and School Quality Officers.
ASC received and noted the report of the Joint Academic Management Board meeting held on 8 July 2010 which provided a summary of discussion at the Board representing the University of Glasgow and Glasgow International College.
The above report was received and noted. This showed a reduction in the number of new course proposals and course changes in session 2009-10 compared to the previous year.
There were no items of reserved business.
The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 18 February 2011 at 9.30 a.m. in the Melville Room.
Created by: Ms Helen Butcher