The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.  

There were no items raised by the Convener. 

The convener of the Quality Officers' Forum, Dr Macauley, introduced the group's overview report on annual monitoring for session 2009-10. It was reported that School and College Quality Officers had been appointed for the new arrangements for 2010-11 although a vacancy remained for the College Quality Officer for Social Sciences. The annual monitoring reports for 2009-10 had been produced under the previous Faculty structures although given the timing of the University restructuring, there had inevitably been a mix of old and new given changes in staff responsibilities. Therefore a number of reports had been produced by staff who were no longer responsible for this area. There were a small number of Subjects which had not appeared to engage appropriately in annual monitoring for 2009-10; these omissions and oversights would be reported to the relevant Deans of Learning & Teaching to be addressed. The Faculty AMRs had been scrutinised by the Quality Officers' Forum and the report produced for ASC, although in future each College QO would submit their own College Annual Monitoring Summary directly to ASC.

In terms of the 2009-10 AMRs, Dr Macauley reported a prevalent theme of scepticism in the process from many report writers with a lack of belief in action being taken to address issues raised in reports. As agreed last session, work would be done to ensure that School QOs were advised of responses to actions raised with central areas.

ASC noted the items of good practice identified in section 2 of the report which the Senate Office would use to prepare further information for dissemination via the web. Dr Macauley suggested that in future, to encourage further information in this area, reporters should simply be required to identify items of good practice, rather than items of good practice which they also considered suitable for wider dissemination.

The third section of the report identified a wide range of issues which required attention from the University and it was noted that recurrent themes from the previous session's annual monitoring had been identified as follows:

• International student recruitment, admissions and related matters
• Generic matters associated with learning and teaching spaces
• Pressures associated with the restructuring of the University
• Examination timetabling
• Matters pertaining to Undergraduate Student Advising and the SLP
• Comments relating to the Standard Student Feedback Questionnaire and its administration

A detailed list of all items raised for attention is provided in Appendix 1. Details of issues relating to specific learning and teaching spaces is provided in Appendix 2 for transmission to Estates & Buildings; these items were separated from the generic teaching space issues as they would each require an individual action from Estates & Buildings. Members agreed that the large volume of items identified in relation to teaching space showed the extent of the problem and the lack of any sense by academic staff that these problems were addressed.

ASC was invited to note that arrangements were in hand to establish a small Working Group drawn from the members of EdPSC and the Quality Officers Forum to review the purpose of the standard student questionnaire. This Group would conduct some more thorough evaluation using, as a starting point, the information obtained from relevant questions that have been included in 2010-11 School Annual Monitoring Summaries (SAMS) and the findings of another Working Group of EdPSC which was looking at pilots on the best method of handling questionnaires.

While the University restructuring did not apply to session 2009-10, its impact was referred to in the reports with a strong emphasis on concerns about loss of subject identity through the process and the need for individual academic subjects to remain visible outside the University.

Looking forward to the 2010-11 annual monitoring exercise, Dr Macauley suggested that there should be some simplification of the School report templates to condense responses under fewer headings: new programmes; problems to be tackled at School level; problems to be tackled from outside the School; good practice; and any other comments. He considered this approach would simplify the task for report writers without losing any significant information.

Action: Senate Office

ASC approved the report and agreed that the items detailed in appendices 1 and 2 would be directed to the relevant University officers requesting a response in September for reporting to ASC on 7 October 2011.

Action: Clerk of ASC

Mrs Omand introduced the above report which summarised the concerns raised by External Examiners during session 2009-10 and identified areas of good practice and other issues relating to external examining procedures during last session.

It was noted from the statistical information that the number of concerns raised were comparable to the previous session, although areas identified as good practice had decreased. Members were advised that for the current session the Report Form had been revised to include an explicit request to report on good practice.

ASC was advised that procedural problems had arisen as a result of University restructuring which were mainly due to the timing of report submissions clashing with the change in responsibility from Head of Department to Head of School. This had led to delays in the dissemination of reports, School responses to them, and final responses to External Examiners. In some cases, restructuring had led to a high volume of reports being received by Schools which could need further monitoring. UK Border Agency requirements had also caused some frustration in the administration of the process, and some difficulty in appointing External Examiners from outwith the European Education Area.

Current developments during 2010-11 were also noted, including the introduction of revised External Examiner fees and the development of the new on-line external examiner system which allowed External Examiners to submit their reports on-line and would also, in due course, operate an on-line nomination process.

Nationally, ASC was advised that the final report from the Universities UK Review of External Examining had been issued. This had concluded that the current system was relatively robust while identifying the need to increase its transparency for students and stakeholders, unfamiliar with the system. Members noted that the University complied with 10 of the 14 recommendations of the report but further work would be undertaken in the following areas which related to Recommendations 4, 12, 13 and 14:

• Provision of an induction programme for all external examiners
• All reports to be made available in full to students
• External examiner's name and position to be included in programme details
• Provision of an independent mechanism for raising concerns over standards outwith the organisation in cases where all internal procedures have been exhausted.

In terms of an induction programme, it was noted that there were practical implications given the high number of External Examiners at Glasgow and therefore arrangements for an on-line induction plus an initial/introductory meeting with the School/Subject area were being considered.

It was noted that the Senate Office Director, Dr Aitken, was a member of the national group which was reviewing the national set of minimum expectations and the criteria for the new QAA Code of Practice which were currently under development for implementation at the start of session 2012/13. In terms of the proposed national criteria for the appointment of External Examiners, Dr Aitken reported that there were concerns regarding the proposed restrictions against appointing individuals who had i) been involved with collaborative research with a member of staff from the University, or ii) been involved with the approval of the programme. These would be in direct conflict with existing practice at Glasgow, and many other HEIs, and therefore representations against these would be made.

Proposed new Generic regulations combining PGT and MRes regulations

ASC agreed to recommend to EdPSC a revised generic postgraduate regulation which would cover both PGT and MRes degree programmes - see Appendix 3. If approved by EdPSC, the regulation would be forwarded to Senate in October 2011 for final approval and following this would be introduced in session 2012-13. ASC confirmed that following its introduction there would be monitoring of the operation of the new regulation.

The PGT and MRes degrees were combined into the single generic regulation following a review of the current generic MRes regulations which were outdated and lacking in detail. The regulation was drafted by ARSC following extensive consultation with MRes programme teams and the Deans of Graduate Studies (DoGS).

The regulations were designed to accommodate the different balance in credits between taught and independent work which featured between PGT and MRes programmes, with the latter normally only involving 60 taught credits with 120 credits of independent work being structured in a variety of ways.

ASC agreed to the following points in the revised regulation:

• The regulation allowed programmes to include more than one progression point by including a separate section (1.3) where such programmes would be listed. This would allow MRes programmes which imposed progression requirements after each project to be included. Programmes wishing to be listed under this section would need to be explicit about how their requirements differed from the standard provisions, and these requirements would have to be clearly brought to the attention of students in programme documentation.
• All programmes would include a minimum of 60 taught credits as this would allow a PG Certificate early exit award [see section 4.1(i)]. It was agreed that this minimum would maintain a distinction between the programmes covered by these awards and programmes that were purely research-based.
• In some cases, the structure of programmes did not exactly align with the credit requirement for a PG Diploma. For example, the MRes in Arts might involve 90 credits of taught courses and 90 of dissertation.
• In line with revised provisions on reassessment of coursework being introduced into the Code of Assessment, students would be entitled to be reassessed in PGT/MRes coursework, and exemptions would only be permitted if a strong case were presented.
• The PGT requirement of an average standard of C3 on the taught courses (120 credits) and a D3 for the dissertation/independent work (60 credits) would be retained. To achieve consistency between MRes and PGT programmes, C3 in at least 120 credits (including all taught credits) would also be required for the MRes.
• The requirements for merit and distinction would continue to stipulate separate requirements between the taught courses and the dissertations/projects. Three of the existing MRes programmes had suggested that the grades required for these awards should be expressed as an average across all the programme courses (so that poor performance at the start of the programme could be compensated by better performance at the end of the taught element), but it was agreed to retain the current PGT requirements for Merit and Distinction as these rules had been amended in the last session in response to the view that the standard had previously been too low.

Proposed introduction of early progression point in MRes Molecular Medicine

ASC noted the proposals by the MRes Molecular Medicine to introduce a progression point after students had completed a 15 credit introductory taught course. This was due to concerns that if students were unable to reach the D3 standard after two attempts, there would be serious reservations about their ability to function in a laboratory environment. ASC agreed that, in principle, such a progression point could be justified. However, there were concerns, particularly in relation to international students who experienced significant upheaval and expense in coming to Glasgow, at students being required to terminate their studies after just 15 credits' worth of study. ASC agreed to accept the proposal subject to students failing to progress on this programme being offered alternative courses which would at least offer the opportunity of exiting with a PG certificate.

Members considered it unreasonable to require full fee payment from students who were only able to complete a semester, or less, of courses. The SRC President noted that the NUS had sought a guarantee from the UK Government to adopt a restriction in students' liability for fees of 25% for one semester's worth of study, and 50% for two semesters. ASC agreed to propose to EdPSC that a review be undertaken of the University's policies generally in relation to the non-reimbursement of fees in the event of Masters students not completing the intended programme of study.

Action: Clerk of ASC

Code of Assessment 2011-12

Following a number of amendments agreed over the course of the session, ASC agreed to recommend to EdPSC the revised Code of Assessment for 2011-12 - see Appendix 4¹. The following points were noted or considered:

Provisions on reassessment: sections 16.6 - 16.13

The revised regulations reflected a number of decisions agreed by ASC and EdPSC:

• Eligibility for reassessment to apply to all course components where the overall course threshold grade has not been achieved;
• Reassessments to be in essentially the same format and to carry the same weighting as the original assessment;
• Reassessment of coursework to be available unless exemption is agreed by the Head of School;
• The final result following reassessment will reflect the best results for each component;
• Where no reassessment of coursework is possible, the result from the first attempt must be counted.

There was some further discussion regarding the previously agreed principle that students who were eligible to resit a course, could select to resit any or all of the components of assessment. There was some concern that for the professional degrees particularly, the professional bodies considered that all assessments should contribute to the final award and there was therefore unease that students could pick and choose which assessment components to repeat. It was suggested that this issue could be overcome by setting a minimum grade requirement for each assessment component. Members agreed that this advice could be added to the Guide to the Code of Assessment. It was also agreed that there should be a systematic review of the Code of Assessment in relation to the assessment of professional degrees. This would be undertaken by ARSC during 2011-12.

Action: Senate Office

Reporting of all results as primary grades/secondary bands: sections 16.24, 16.31

These amendments reflected the agreement that while continued marking of components of assessment in percentages was permitted, aggregation must be performed after conversion to a primary grade and secondary band.

Joint Honours Boards of Examiners' meetings: section 16.66(b)

These amendments covered the operation of Boards of Examiners in relation to Joint Honours degrees.

New regulations regarding Assessment of Study Abroad

Following the agreement of key principles for the assessment of study abroad by the Learning & Teaching Committee, and EdPSC, ARSC was asked to propose regulations to reflect these. The proposed regulations ensured that flexibility and discretion was maintained in this process. Not all principles were incorporated into the Code of Assessment as this was not considered appropriate.

Clarification of current regulations

ASC considered a number of matters relating to the implementation of current regulations which had arisen from queries regarding specific cases. The following was confirmed:

Good Cause Regulations and Grade adjustments

It was confirmed that in applying the rules on Incomplete Assessment and Good Cause where students who had undertaken assessment and submitted a good cause claim, there should not be any grade adjustment to account for the effect of the mitigating circumstances on the student's performance. It was confirmed that the Code of Assessment did not permit grade adjustment as this breached the fundamental principle that undemonstrated performance should not be credited.

In noting a blanket policy in one area of adjusting grades by one secondary band where good cause had been established, it was agreed that this was not fair practice as the amendment could have markedly different consequences depending on what the original grade was. In addition, it was considered that such a small adjustment suggested that what was being addressed was not manifest prejudice which was one of the requirements for establishing good cause.

Alternative assessment opportunities in Honours under Good Cause regulations

In cases where junior honours students were given a second assessment opportunity (as a first diet) under the rules on Incomplete Assessment and Good Cause, it was confirmed that generally all the outstanding assessment(s) should be taken at a special diet later in the session. (This could be during the August diet, or later if appropriate.).

It was also confirmed that only exceptionally there might be consideration of omitting some part of the assessment in view of the rule that permitted the award of a classified honours degree with as little as 75% of the assessment having been completed. However this should not be standard practice given the inherent risks of not meeting the 75% requirements by the end of senior Honours. It was also noted that in some cases, e.g. the BSc regulations, the requirements for progressing to the senior honours year included the need for a student to be eligible for the award of an ordinary degree and thus all 120 credits from junior honours needed to be completed.

Application of the rule on 'Counting of Courses'

It was confirmed that PGT students who achieved a CR in one course should be permitted to take another course - or repeat the same course - in the following session in order to have the opportunity to achieve the required number of credits for the award, but that the overall aggregation score should be based on the CR outcome (a zero) rather than the score arising from the later course taken. It was also confirmed that if the progression requirement (average C3) was achieved, such students could progress to the dissertation on the understanding that the outstanding credits would need to be subsequently achieved before the student could qualify for the Masters award.

It was also confirmed that the above scenario was distinguished from that of a student who completed the required number of credits but whose profile of grades did not satisfy the relevant requirements. In this case it was agreed that the latter student would not be permitted the opportunity to take another course in the following session with a view to achieving an improved result. (The student would - in most cases - have had two opportunities at the relevant assessment in their year of study.)

Duration of Examinations (16.14 - 16.21 and Schedule D of the Code of Assessment)

ASC noted that ARSC had invited Schools to bring to their attention areas where the above regulations were not being complied with or where it was considered that the regulations presented Schools with difficulties.

It was noted that a number of areas had come forward to advise that their schemes of assessment were not currently in compliance with the regulations, and through dialogue with the ARSC, most had amended their assessments or were in the process of doing so. The few remaining areas where arrangements are not in compliance with the regulations were being referred to the Clerk of Senate, although it was agreed that all courses should now be required to be compliant with the regulations.

Discretion in the award of honours classification

ASC noted that ARSC had considered a paper from a member of Senate which outlined objections to the current proposals concerning discretion in the award of honours classifications. It was noted that one of the main objections concerned the narrowing of the discretionary zones between classifications. Figures showing the proportion of students from the discretionary zones being promoted to a higher classification in History showed the numbers being promoted from 2.2 to 2.1 and from 2.1 to 1st in the .5 - .9 range as 88% and 86% respectively. ARSC had expressed surprise at these figures which suggested that the effective borderlines were 14.5 and 17.5 respectively. In the .1 - .4 range, the proportion being promoted was 48% and 43% respectively. The practice reported for History was considered to be unusual, as members' own experience was that promotion from the .1 to .4 range of the zones was rare and the proposals had been formulated on this basis. ARSC suggested that it would be possible to introduce the new guidelines on the exercise of discretion without narrowing the bands, in order to permit a period of wider consultation, although it was suggested that this was not in fact necessary.

ASC confirmed this view and expressed no amendment to its original proposal which had been agreed by EdPSC.

ASC was advised that guidance had been sought on assessment arrangements for visiting students who undertook assessment at Glasgow. The Clerk of Senate confirmed that the key objective in these cases should be to ensure that students were able to satisfy the requirements of their home University, which would be awarding the degree, and therefore a reasonable degree of flexibility was required.

ASC noted that a set of principles on the assessment of visiting students had been developed in 2003 and agreed that these should be reviewed and updated for inclusion in the Code of Assessment. ARSC would be asked to take this forward giving particular consideration to students leaving Glasgow i) in advance of the scheduled assessment period; and ii) in advance of the Board of Examiners' formal consideration of the results.

Action: Clerk of ARSC

ASC considered the above report. It was noted that in response to the ELIR Action Plan, the Working Group had revised the proforma and guidance for external consultation in the approval process to encourage a more robust operation of the external consultation process and encourage more detailed comments from external consultants. The Working Group had reconsidered whether external consultation was necessary for individual course changes, and also whether consultation with Central Room Bookings (CRB) should be mandatory for course changes. It was noted that individual course changes (as opposed to programme changes) were often minimal and that consultation with externals and CRB would be excessive in most cases.

ASC agreed that the course approval procedure should be revised to:

i) Remove the need for external consultation on individual course changes; and

ii) Remove the mandatory requirement of CRB consultation for individual course changes on the basis that only changes which could impact on room bookings should be referred to CRB.

ASC also approved the following revision to the course approval system to implement the agreed policy that the non-availability of coursework reassessment should be exceptional and only possible as a formal opt-out approved by the Head of School:

The Course Proposal Support document would be amended to require i) a rationale for the opt-out of coursework reassessment and ii) confirmation that the Head of School had approved the proposed opt-out. (New fields A5.1 and B8 would be added to cover these). PAGs would therefore be able to review the rationale for opt-out and check approval by the Head of School.

It was noted that this revised procedure would apply only to new or change proposals for courses submitted from 2011-12 onwards. The issue of how to collect the opt-out information for existing courses would be discussed at the next Working Group meeting.

Action: Clerk of PCAWG 

ASC approved the following dates for meetings next session:

Friday 7 October 2011

Friday 18 November 2011

Friday 17 February 2012

Tuesday 17 April 2012

Friday 25 May 2012 

The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 7 October 2011 at 9.30am in the Melville Room. 

¹ A number of further minor revisions were made subsequent to the meeting in consultation with the Conveners of ASC and ARSC.