The minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 February 2011 were approved. 

There were no items to report. 

Three of the four Programme Approval Groups (PAGs) had met in March to consider College proposals for new programmes or major changes for introduction in 2011-12. ASC confirmed the recommendations from each PAG as detailed in their reports see 46.1.1 - 46.1.3 below.

PAG conveners highlighted a number of issues. Many proposals involved degrees with several named streams. Such degrees required separate programme codes to allow students to be registered for the correct degree and to receive the correct award at graduation. In terms of programme specifications, a number of proposals had submitted a single programme specification to cover multiple streams. While it was accepted that one programme specification could be submitted for a number of closely related degrees with substantive commonality between aims, ILOs, assessment and teaching, the PAGs had found that in many cases there was significant variation in the aims and ILOs between the streams and therefore separate programme specifications had been requested. ASC agreed that separate programme specifications should be submitted in such cases and noted that where a suite of related programmes was being submitted for approval, the proposer(s) could submit one representative programme specification, and supporting documents, for detailed scrutiny; then, following approval the remaining documentation could be submitted through the PIP system. Attention was also drawn to the plan building process in Campus Solutions and it was noted that separate plans would be required for each distinct degree title.

The majority of proposals submitted to the PAGs had been conditionally approved subject to some revision of the programme specification. In some cases it was considered that issues which had been raised at College scrutiny had not been sufficiently addressed before onward transmission to the PAG. Some of the consultation information provided in the College documentation did not give sufficient information on responses to the consultation process and this had to be sought by further review of documentation on the PIP system. In 12 cases the PAGs had not been able to recommend approval of the proposals as they stood and issues of concern had been referred back to the relevant College with a view to resolving these to allow approval at a future point.

At this stage ASC was unable to confirm final approval of proposals. An update on progress with current actions on all proposals would be received in May. 

Professor Guthrie introduced the above report. ASC was asked to consider a number of proposals from the Academic Regulations Sub-Committee (ARSC).

Discretion in award of merit and distinction in PGT degrees

ASC had asked ARSC to review these discretionary provisions in the light of agreed changes to discretion in Honours classifications. It was noted that the generic regulations for taught masters degrees offered Boards of Examiners discretion in relation to the taught component of the programme when awarding merit and distinction. There was no discretion in relation to the requirements concerning the dissertation. ARSC agreed that this should continue and that the discretionary zones for the aggregation scores of the taught component of Masters programmes should be narrowed just as the discretionary zones for Honours classifications had been narrowed.

ASC agreed to recommend to EdPSC the following amendment to the PGT zones for merit and distinction as follows:

It was also agreed to recommend to EdPSC that in exercising discretion of the above borderlines, Exam Boards should consider the overall profile of grades, and they could also refer to i) Rank order of aggregation scores and ii) the unrounded mean. Given the differences in nature between PGT programmes and Honours programmes, it was agreed that it would not be appropriate to refer to outlying grades or to preponderance.

As with discretion for Honours classifications, it was confirmed that borderline vivas, exit velocity or early performance in the programme should not be taken into consideration by Exam Boards.

If approved these revisions would be applied to PGT students graduating at the end of session 2011-12.

Interpretation of regulatory requirements for students with Accredited Prior Learning (APL)

Attention was drawn to students with APL, which was ungraded credit, being unable to satisfy certain regulations for progress, honours entry or final awards due to having an insufficient amount of credit at a minimum grade. For example, at least 280 credits at grade D were needed for the award of an ordinary degree, and a student entering into year 2 with 120 credits of ungraded APL would be able to achieve a maximum of only 240 credits at grade D.

ARSC suggested that APL credit could be treated as the equivalent of grade D or above. It was pointed out that the APL guidelines required that 'the overall profile of study and attainment of students whose prior learning is accredited is equivalent to that of students who study at Glasgow for the entire duration of their degree programme' and therefore it could be assumed that in accepting prior learning, the University had made a judgment that the prior learning had been at a 'satisfactory' standard.

ASC noted that if this principle was applied a student accepted onto the beginning of year three who then wished to exit with an ordinary degree would only require 40 from the 120 credits studied in that year to be at grade D or above. However, the generic undergraduate regulation also required 60 credits at grade D to be at Level 3 or higher, and therefore this requirement would need to be adhered to.

It was agreed to propose to EdPSC that for all regulations in relation to (a) the award of a degree, (b) annual progress or (c) entry to Honours, ungraded APL should be treated as credit at grade D or better.

It was also agreed to propose to EdPSC that for the purposes of determining higher performance (merit or distinction), the GPA calculation should be based only on credits studied and assessed at Glasgow. This would mean that for APL students the GPA calculation for merit and distinction would be based on a smaller amount of credit. ASC's view was that while this was not ideal, there was no practicable alternative to calculating the GPA on the basis of what had been achieved at Glasgow.

Proposed Changes to the Code of Assessment

ASC considered proposed revisions to various clauses of the Code of Assessment based on previously agreed principles. The proposed revision of 16.2 to add a clause b) with definitions of components and sub components of assessment was approved (see Appendix 1). It was noted that the concept of sub component was integral to further forthcoming changes to the reassessment regulations.

Additional text to clause 16.31 was also agreed to specify that all summative assessment components must be included in the course aggregation process, however it was agreed that the existing regulatory reference to aggregation of percentage scores required amendment following recent confirmation that numerical marking should be converted to a primary grade/secondary band before aggregation.

Action: Clerk of ARSC

The reference to guidance on discretion for Boards of Examiners which had been added to 16.36 b) was approved (see Appendix 1) and it was agreed that the additional information for the Guide to the Code of Assessment should also be submitted to ASC.

ASC considered the new clause b) to regulation 16.66 which detailed procedures for the operation of Joint Honours Examination Boards. It was agreed that this clause required some amendment in the first sentence to allow the option of Joint Board meetings to be held separately from the second subject Board of Examiners meeting to continue.

Action: Clerk of ARSC

Appendix 1 shows the revised regulatory text approved by ASC. Items requiring further revision will be submitted to ASC in May with a view to reporting to EdPSC in June a complete set of regulatory amendments for the 2011-12 edition of the Calendar.

Dissemination of information on regulation changes

ASC's attention was drawn to the matter of effective dissemination of assessment regulations given the number of changes which had been made recently. It was agreed that improving colleagues understanding of assessment regulations would be beneficial. Current Senate Office practice of notifying staff of key regulatory changes at the time of the publication of the Calendar (early August) was endorsed and it was suggested that this could be supplemented by reminders at key points in the academic year, particularly around the time of assessment diets.

Action: Senate Office

The Committee received a paper which provided information on the newly developed Framework for Academic Collaborations and identified the proposed new policies and procedures which had been formulated through the development of the Framework. Members were advised that the Framework had been developed to provide a comprehensive set of guidance for developing, establishing and maintaining a range of academic collaborations. Actions arising from the University's Internationalisation Strategy, the most recent Enhancement-Led Institutional Review and the recent internal audit of international partnerships had been included in the process and there had also been significant benchmarking of practice in other Higher Education Institutions.

ASC welcomed the introduction of the Framework which could provide useful operational guidance for colleagues working on academic collaborations. Members noted the various actions arising from ELIR, internal audit and the Internationalisation Strategy and considered the various recommendations which had arisen from these. In noting the revised procedures for annual monitoring (covered in recommendation ix below), it was suggested that Colleges should be given guidance on their monitoring role for academic collaborative programmes, and that a standard structure for the composite annual report for ASC should be introduced.

Action: Senate Office

ASC agreed to recommend to EdPSC the following new procedures or policies for the operation of academic collaborations:

(i) It is recommended that a risk assessment tool be introduced and that a completed risk assessment form be required as part of the approval procedures to determine the level of 'risk potential' associated with a proposed collaboration.

(ii) It is recommended that the type of institutional visit (where required) should be determined by the level of potential risk associated with the partnership.

(iii) It is recommended that an external academic member with, if possible, cultural expertise as well as academic expertise gained through experience of the relevant country, be added as a normal requirement to the membership where a full panel visit is deemed necessary.

(iv) It is recommended that the University introduce a new procedure for reviewing collaborative partnerships prior to the end of the period of agreement.

(v) It is recommended that the University should not permit the use of the University Logo on academic certificates that are solely the award of a partner institution and to which the University makes no contribution.

(vi) It is recommended that it be a requirement to develop an operational plan for Year 1 of a new partnership arrangement, which sets out clearly what the responsibilities of each partner are. This would be developed once approval of the partnership had been obtained and would be based on the Memorandum of Agreement but be more detailed and would identify individuals.

(vii) It is recommended that a Year 1 review be introduced to provide a mechanism to allow the University to monitor at an early stage and be confident that collaboration agreements and collaborative programmes are being managed and delivered as intended.

(viii) It is proposed that the proforma to be completed for the approval of a collaborative partnership will include a due diligence checklist. This will embrace strategic, academic, financial and legal due diligence.

(ix) It is recommended that Colleges should submit an annual, composite report to ASC on the operation of academic collaborative programmes within the College to provide assurance that academic standards of all programmes and the student experience are being managed effectively and that any failings are being addressed. 

The Committee received data on degree classifications at Glasgow for sessions 2007-08 to 2009-10 which showed, by HESA Subject Code, student performance over the last three sessions in terms of the percentage of Honours students achieving 1st class Honours and, good Honours degrees (1st class and 2.1).

ASC noted the overall University totals for the last three years and saw that the number of firsts had risen by 2% to 17% in 2009-10, and similarly the number of good degrees had risen by 3% to 66% compared to the previous two sessions. Members considered that the breakdown by subject code gave too small numbers for many groupings which rendered the data statistically insignificant. It was agreed that in future presentation, these data should be by Subject Area which would provide in larger groupings.

The inclusion of classification information for Dentistry was questioned given that the BDS degree did not award Honours classifications. This would be checked with the Planning Office.

Action: Clerk

The Committee received an update from the Mechanical Engineering discipline within the School of Engineering detailing action since the University re-structuring in taking forward the recommendation which had sought promotion of two-way communication between leaders and staff through a review of the management and committee structure in the area. Members considered that the detailed response clearly showed that this recommendation had been taken forward appropriately.

The Committee received four of the eight outstanding annual reports from the University's joint degree programmes for 2009-10.

Two of these reports related to Masters programmes where Glasgow was the lead institution: Social History and Criminology and Criminal Justice. Members considered that these reports were positive. It was noted that student numbers for MSc Social History were small although the courses offered on this programme involved joint teaching with other programmes. Strathclyde University's recent indication of their wish to withdraw from the MSc Criminology and Criminal Justice was also noted.

ASC also noted the reports for the joint degrees of Master of Social Work and BA Social Work where Strathclyde was the lead institution. 

ASC received and noted the above report of the meeting of the Joint Board. The remit and membership of the Board for 20010-11 was approved.  

ASC received and noted the above report of the meeting of the Joint Board. Approval was given to the remit and membership of the Board for 2010-11.

The Committee noted the above report from SAC which detailed the ways in which the development team for the PgCert/PgDip/MSc Countryside Management had addressed the conditions and recommendations of the Validation which had been held in May 2010.  

ASC noted the above report which summarised the discussion of the JAMB at its meeting of 15 December 2010. 

ASC received and noted a summary of accreditations of University programmes which had been undertaken by professional, statutory and regulatory bodies in sessions 2008-09 and 2009-10. 

The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 27 May 2011 at 9.30 a.m. in the Melville Room.