ASC/2011/32 Minutes of the Meeting held on Friday 18 November 2011 

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as a correct record. 

ASC/2011/33 Matters Arising 

 

ASC/2011/34 Convener's Business 

 

ASC/2011/35 Programme Approval 

 

ASC/2011/36 Bachelor of Nursing: Proposal for Non Standard Course Credit Ratings 

ASC received a proposal from Nursing & Midwifery requesting approval for non-standard credit ratings on seven courses on the Bachelor of Nursing programme. It was noted that other changes were being made to the BN programme (which would go through normal programme approval processes) to bring its courses into line with the University's standard credit ratings. However this had not been possible for the remaining seven courses due to their extensive use of clinical practice or the need to integrate skills and theory learning. ASC accepted that the BN degree had to meet strict requirements set by the Nursing & Midwifery Council and approved to the following non standard credit ratings:

Practice learning experience 1 - 65 credits

Practice learning experience 2 - 80 credits

Practice learning experience 3 - 45 credits

Clinical practice consolidation 3 - 45 credits

Clinical practice consolidation 4 - 45 credits

Nursing & Integrated Biomedical Life Sciences 1 - 50 credits

Nursing 2 - 50 credits

ASC/2011/37 Report from Meeting of Programme & Course Approval Working Group - 24 November 2011 

The Working Group Convener, Professor Jenkins, introduced the above report.

The main item of business had been consideration of a process for identifying and approving existing courses which did not provide a reassessment opportunity for coursework. This would accommodate the regulatory provision in 16.9 of the Code of Assessment which required Head of School approval that coursework could not be replicated and also allow the publication of this information in the Course Catalogue which was generated from PIP. ASC approved the proposed process which would require schools to identify any such courses, using PIP by the end of June 2012. Schools would be encouraged to complete this exercise in tandem with the checking exercise for the Course Catalogue publication. All courses would as a default show that a reassessment opportunity was available unless this was changed by schools in the above process.

It was also noted from the report that i) procedures for improving evidence of College consideration of consultation documentation were being reviewed and further information would be submitted to ASC in April; and ii) a light touch process for approval of CPD courses had been developed in PIP.

Action: Clerk of PCAWG

ASC/2011/38 Report from the Meeting of Academic Regulations Sub-Committee - 2 February 2012 

ARSC Convener, Professor Guthrie, introduced the report.

Assessment of Visiting Students

ASC agreed to recommend to EdPSC the following principles for the assessment of visiting students.

• As far as possible assessments should be the same for home and visiting students, however modifications (ad hoc arrangements) may be necessary in cases where visiting students were required to return to their home institution before all course assessments were completed e.g. where semester 1 courses were assessed in semester 2, or where semester 1 studies were part of a full year course.
• Where a course's normal scheme of assessment involved a component taken under examination conditions, visiting students should normally be assessed under examination conditions. This could be set aside, for example by requirements set by the student's home institution.
• Ad hoc arrangements, when students were required to leave before assessments were completed, should include the following options: i) students sat examinations at home at the correct time; or ii) students undertook an alternative form of assessment before leaving Glasgow.
• Where visiting students were not present for the full duration of the course, credit should be awarded in reflection of the proportion of teaching time attended.
• The current prescription for a minimum of two pieces of assessed work per course should be removed, and the achievement of relevant ILOs should be the main focus, rather than a set number of assessments.
• Visiting students should be permitted to sit final Honours papers.
• Results for visiting students must be processed through a Board of Examiners. Arrangements would be made for students leaving before Board meetings including the issuing of provisional results, and confirmation of results through a 'virtual' board.
• Assessment arrangements for visiting students were not required to appear in the Course Catalogue, although arrangements were needed to ensure that flexibility for visiting students could be supported in MyCampus.

 

If approved the above principles would be drafted into regulations for inclusion in the Code of Assessment from 2012-13.

 

Action: Clerk of ARSC

Zones of Discretion for Honours Classifications and PGT awards of Merit and Distinction

The Sub-Committee had considered responses on the University-wide consultation on the exercise of discretion by Honours and PGT Examination Boards. A number of Schools had commented on the proposal to narrow the zones of discretion and had reported that, at Honours level, there was significant activity in promoting students to higher classifications when they fell in the .1 - .4 range and therefore narrowing the zones of discretion to .5 - .9 would impact on this. Although there had been fewer responses relating to PGT discretionary zones, some returns had again indicated that there were a number of promotions in the lower half of the current discretionary zones.

ASC agreed to recommend to EdPSC that there should be no narrowing of discretionary zones for Honours Classifications or PGT awards of merit and distinction.

ASC was concerned to note that the consultation had revealed inconsistency in the proportion of students being promoted across the range of GPAs in different Schools. ASC agreed that this highlighted the importance of establishing clear guidance for Examination Boards, and noted that ARSC would be bringing proposals for the Guidelines on the Exercise of Discretion to ASC in April. ASC also agreed with ARSC's proposal that a couple of years after agreed Guidelines on discretion were in place, there should be a further review of data on discretionary promotions across the University to investigate whether a greater degree of consistency had been achieved.

Incomplete Assessment and Good Cause: Procedure for submitting claims for good cause

ARSC had noted that procedures for students to submit claims for good cause currently varied depending on whether or not the claim had involved an absence. Where absence was involved, claims were submitted on MyCampus and automatically brought to the attention of the relevant Board of Examiners, but where there was no absence - e.g. an assessment was completed but the student believed their performance had been affected by good cause - the circumstances and evidence were submitted to the Head of School who then notified the Board of Examiners.

ASC agreed with ARSC's proposed principle that there should be a single procedure for students to follow to submit good cause information.

ASC therefore approved the following:

• Students should be required to submit all good cause claims to MyCampus;
• the SLP should be invited to consider how such a change to procedure could be implemented, and
• the necessary change be made to regulations once SLP had confirmed that MyCampus would support the change and had provided an implementation date for this.  

Action: Clerk of ASC/SLP

Operation of Code of Assessment for professional programmes

ASC noted that the Heads of the Schools of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine had been asked to report to ARSC on their plans for taking forward credit rating of their programmes. The School of Veterinary Medicine had confirmed that a credit rating structure was being considered for the BVMS and was included in the current process of curriculum review with a view to PAG submission in Semester 1 next session. No response had been received from the School of Medicine.

It was also noted that ARSC would:

• report to a later meeting of ASC on the feasibility of generating overall course grades where assessment was carried out under both Schedules A and B;
• take forward clarification of regulations concerned with award of honours and commendation, and incomplete assessment and good cause.

Proposed combined MRes and PGT generic regulations

It was noted that the Convener of ARSC would meet with the Deans of Graduate Studies Group with a view to reaching agreement on outstanding issues on the proposed generic regulations for MRes and PGT degrees and that proposed regulations would be brought to a later meeting of ASC for approval.

ASC/2011/39 Credit Loads for Study Abroad 

It was reported to ASC that there had been two cases this session where students had been given permission to take lighter than normal course loads while studying overseas. It was noted that both arrangements had been agreed after students had contacted their schools to report that they were struggling with their workload overseas and therefore requested to drop some of their studies. Despite taking only 75% and 80% of the overseas institution's standard workload for the year, both students would be treated as having studied the equivalent of 120 credits at Glasgow.

The Committee was asked to consider whether to process of permitting lighter loads for overseas study required formalising in terms of regulation or policy. Members considered that while the normal expectation was for students to take the full load when they went on placement abroad, there might be cases where it was acceptable to reduce workloads on a case by case basis with factors such as linguistic challenges being taken into account. It was also considered crucial for students to be given clear information on workloads prior to embarking on study abroad.

It was agreed that the matter should be referred to the Academic Regulations Sub-Committee to consider whether any formalisation of procedures was required.

Action: Clerk of ARSC

ASC/2011/40 Early Opt-Outs on Two-Semester Courses 

ASC considered the issue of early opt-outs for long thin courses which ran over two semesters to enable students the chance to leave after one semester to take alternative course choices while receiving proportionate credit to reflect their studies during semester 1.

It was confirmed that there was no regulatory requirement that credit for early opt-outs from long thin courses must be provided, and it was noted that in some cases the course assessment was weighted heavily in semester 2 leaving an insufficient amount of assessment on which to base graded credit at the end of the first semester. Members agreed that while the question of early opt-outs would not apply to honours courses, it was recommended good practice to allow them at levels 1 and 2 where it could be possible for assessment schemes be set to include a reasonable amount of assessment in semester 1.

ASC/2011/41 Monitoring of PGT Degree Classification Data 

ASC received and noted data on the degree classifications (merit and distinction) for taught Masters programmes awarded for academic session 2010-11. The information on proportion of classifications awarded had been broken down by award type per College and included exit awards on each programme. Members noted significant variations in the proportions of distinctions awarded in different areas of the University. It was agreed that there would be continued monitoring of these figures over future years to establish whether there was a consistent profile over time.

A grand total for the University was not provided in the paper. These figures were subsequently recorded as 13% distinctions and 39% merits over a total of 2,835 awards for 2010-11. 

ASC/2011/42 Periodic Subject Review (formerly DPTLA Review) 

 

ASC/2011/43 Report on UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B7: External Examining 

ASC received a paper from the Senate Office outlining the new Chapter B7 in the QAA's new UK Quality Code for Higher Education which replaced the previous section on External Examining in the QAA Code of Practice. The paper noted that the new chapter included 18 indicators which had been developed with the aim of improving consistency in external examining and providing greater transparency to students. Although most of the indicators were covered by the University's current procedures, eight areas were identified where the need for further development of University procedures had been highlighted.

ASC noted the actions proposed in the following areas:

• The minimum interval after which External Examiners could be reappointed would be extended from four to five years (indicator 5).
• External Examiners would be offered a general induction session on University policy via the on-line External Examiner database, once it was fully operational. In addition, new External Examiners would be invited to attend an induction session with the subject area on the day of the Board of Examiners meeting to discuss relevant issues for the subject and school/research institute (indicator 6).
• Schools and research institutes would ensure that the names, position and institutions of External Examiners were provided to students in their course or programme information (indicator 8).
• External Examiners would be notified via the annual report form that their reports would be made available to students and therefore names of individual staff and students should not be included (indicator 13).
• The letter of appointment would advise External Examiners of their right to invoke the QAA's concerns scheme, or to inform the relevant professional, statutory or regulatory body if they had a serious concern relating to systematic failings in academic standards (indicator 18).

ASC was asked to comment and/or propose actions in order to meet the following indicators:

• Indicator 11 - ASC considered that no further action was required by the University, as recognition of external examining duties by its own staff was covered through the 'measures of esteem' in the PDR process.
• Indicator 14 - ASC suggested that External Examiner reports might be made available to students by publication on the Senate Office website.
• Indicator 15 - it was suggested that schools and research institutes could include input from student representatives to the formal response to issues raised by External Examiners by discussing the reports at Student/Staff Liaison Committees. In terms of timing, it was suggested that most reports came later in the summer, or autumn, and therefore early SSLC meetings would be able to cover this business.

ASC/2011/44 Report of the Meeting of the Joint Board of the University of Glasgow and Free Church of Scotland College - 12 January 2012  

ASC received the report of the above meeting and approved the remit and membership for the Joint Board of the University of Glasgow and Free Church of Scotland College for session 2011-12.

ASC also approved the proposed extension of the validation of the Bachelor of Theology degree by one year to academic session 2012-13 to bring it into line with the six year validation term of the other programmes offered at the Free Church College. It was noted that the revalidation event for this programme would now be scheduled for session 2012-13 to allow revalidation from the start of session 2013-14. 

ASC/2011/45 Quality Update: Scottish Funding Council's Update of the National Quality Enhancement Framework, and ELIR3 at Glasgow  

ASC received an update on external developments concerning academic quality management. It was reported that the Scottish Funding Council had recently updated the Quality Enhancement Framework terms and requirements in readiness for the start of the third round of ELIR and the following amendments were noted:

• 'Effectiveness' would replace 'Confidence' in the ELIR outcome judgements;
• reports would be shorter with a main report being around 3 pages, similar to the current summary report, and a 'technical' report, based on the current main report but shorter;
• the Reflective Analysis structure would be more logical, describing strategy and then evidencing it;
• examples of quality assurance activities would be submitted in advance of visits to try to allow more time to focus discussion on quality enhancement during the review.

The third round of Enhancement-led Institutional Review would commence from 2012-13, as no 'year of reflection' had been permitted between cycles. The likely timing of the visit to the University of Glasgow would be semester 2 of 2013-14. Preparation would begin at the end of 2012 with the main submission, the Reflective Analysis, being due around December 2013.

Other developments associated with the Quality Enhancement Framework were also reported, including:

• additional annual reporting requirements, including an annual statement of assurance regarding quality and standards to be signed off by the institution's governing body;
• formalising practices with regard to student engagement by making student involvement in QA/QE mandatory;
• SFC's decision to introduce Key Information Sets (KIS) to match arrangements in England, including implementation in September 2012;

ASC/2011/46 Dates of Semester 2 Programme Approval Groups 

The dates and memberships of the four PAGs scheduled for March 2012 were noted. 

ASC/2011/47 Any Other Business 

 

ASC/2011/48 Date of Next Meeting 

The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Wednesday 18 April 2012 at 9.00am in the Melville Room.