The minutes of the last meeting held on 17 February 2012 were approved. 

There were no items of business from the Convener. 

Quality Officers Forum provided an overview of these reports by way of introduction. ASC noted the following themes arising from the reports. 

Annual Monitoring Process

• A revised process had been introduced and there had been a number of issues relating to staffing in terms of turnover or appointment of Quality Officers both at School and College level.
• There were small pockets of non compliance with the process: non submission of reports; or little evidence of engagement with the process in some reports.

Learning & Teaching Issues

• Widespread concern was reported over the inadequacies with the Standard Student Feedback Questionnaire and members were reminded that EdPSC had recently agreed that the current standard questionnaire would not be continued and Colleges should use their own questionnaires. Adoption of the survey software EvaSys was also being considered.
• Concerns over rising Student:Staff Ratios and the impact of this on the student experience.
• Concerns over the level of understanding of the Code of Assessment and a request for further guidance on its application.
• Criticisms of the structure of Semester 1 with the short space between teaching and examinations at the end of the semester.
• A good deal of highlighted good practice.

Accommodation and Estates

• A pressing need for large lecture-theatre space.
• Lack of flexible medium-sized space for tutorial/seminar work to accommodate larger cohorts.
• Regularly reported accommodation issues not being addressed.

In considering each of the College reports additional issues were noted.

College of Arts

• The new annual monitoring system was considered to be working well.
• Although staff were working under pressure, a good quality of learning and teaching was being provided and this was backed up by the positive NSS results across the College.

Areas of concern included:

• inadequate budgets for GTAs;
• support staff numbers and location (too much centralisation of support staff within the College);
• advising arrangements as structured by SLP;
• the status of Subjects and communications between College and Subjects.

College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences

• Various concerns with teaching accommodation.
• Methods to disseminate good practice such as the use of e-blogs as a learning tool and online assessment tools.
• Concern over reduced teaching and administrative staff numbers while increasing student numbers and the impact on the student experience.

College of Science & Engineering

• The report included a number of recommendations regarding modification to the annual monitoring process which would be taken forward by the Quality Officers Forum. (Further detail is provided below).
• Concerns were raised regarding the visibility of Subjects/Disciplines in the new University structures

College of Social Sciences

• Concerns over inappropriate allocation of teaching accommodation for the size of classes and the teaching methods being used.
• Suggestion that Planning Office datasets would be useful for large cohorts to provide information for annual monitoring such as grade profiles.

Each report provided detailed information on matters requiring attention in section 4.2 (b) of their reports. Further analysis of these was required to ensure that items were referred to the correct area of the University for action.

Action: Senate Office

ASC noted and concurred with the widespread concern which had been registered regarding insufficient levels of administrative support at Subject level and the potentially negative impact of this on teaching and learning. It was therefore agreed that the Convener of ASC would write to the Heads of College to highlight the Committee's concerns on this matter.

Action: Clerk & Convener of ASC

ASC also noted the following proposals which would be taken forward by the Quality Officers Forum and the Senate Office:

• Improved availability of annual report information: all levels of reports (AMR, SAMS, CAMS) to be published on the Senate Office website along with summaries of actions taken and information on good practice.
• Raise awareness of the revised procedures for reporting Estates and AV issues - the new one-stop-shop helpdesk which would be accessible from teaching room.
• Process improvements for the next reporting round i) revision of mechanisms for reporting Estates and AV - to be co-ordinated by College Quality Officers ; and ii) improved vertical integration of Annual Monitoring templates (AMR, SAMS, CAMS) to allow a better flow of information from teaching and learning activity to College level and back.  

Dr Macauley had also requested a review of the timetable for Annual Monitoring Reporting in order to accelerate the process. He suggested that the process should not be unduly held up by outstanding or late documentation such as external examiners reports. This matter would be discussed further by the Quality Officers Forum and also considered at the next meeting of ASC.

Action: Clerk of ASC

ASC approved the remit and composition for the QOF for 2011-12 noting that the remit had been revised to clarify the responsibilities of the Forum, but this did not involve any material change to the role of Forum or the College Quality Officer. 

Guidelines on the Exercise of Discretion (Honours Classifications and PGT awards of Merit/Distinction)

ASC considered proposals from the Academic Regulations Sub-Committee (ARSC) relating to the development of University Guidelines for Boards of Examiners in the exercise of discretion when determining the final classification for students in the borderline GPA zones. Members were reminded that there was a recommendation from the University's last ELIR that the there should be University-wide guidance and consistency in the way discretion was exercised, as variable practice had been noted across the institution.

Previously, proposals for standard criteria to be used had been submitted to EdPSC and Senate, but no final agreement had been reached and further consultation was undertaken throughout the Colleges. In considering the consultation responses, ARSC had found a divergence of views surrounding many of the criteria which had previously been put forward for use in exercising discretion, although the Sub-Committee did find a general acceptance of the use of preponderance of grades and the unrounded mean.

ARSC had therefore proposed to ASC that Boards of Examiners, in considering whether to promote students who were in the discretionary zones for Honours Classifications or in discretionary zones - on the basis of taught course results - for the award of merit or distinction at PGT level, should take into account:

Firstly:

1. Preponderance. (In some areas preponderance was considered to consist of 50% of the course grades, whereas in others it was more than 50%. The Committee's view was that exam boards should determine what constituted preponderance.)

Then, for those students not promoted under preponderance:

2. Unrounded mean score.

ARSC also proposed that in those areas that wished to use them, borderline vivas should be permitted, subject to them i) being clearly structured with guidance published to students in advance; and ii) only being used as a possible means of promotion from the borderline zones.

ARSC confirmed that the following criteria set out in the original proposal should not be used for the exercise of discretion:

• Elimination of outlying grades
• Rank order
• Additional weight to be given to dissertation
• Exit velocity
• Personal circumstances/good cause claims: these had never been a permitted criterion in the exercise of discretion, and this should remain the position.

ASC was advised that a number of areas of the University had indicated strong support for exit velocity to be included as a criterion for discretion, as this could be used to reflect the process of maturation which took place over Junior and Senior Honours, give a measure of academic progression between the two Honours years, and was appropriate to the nature of the Scottish four-year degree system. However, ARSC's position remained that where Subject Areas considered exit velocity to be an important principle, it should be applied to all students allowing improving performance to be recognised equally. This could be achieved by weighting the 120 credits gained in the final Honours year more heavily than those achieved in Junior Honours in the overall calculation of the GPA.

ASC gave detailed consideration to the proposals presented by ARSC and the following observations were made.

• While it was acknowledged that consistency for students across the University was important and that some improvement was needed on this, there was concern that over-prescription of the discretionary process could impose too much constraint on Boards of Examiners.
• In some areas, external examiners played a key role in determining the final classification of students in the discretionary zones as they were asked to consider the full range of each student's assessments and make an overall judgement on the standard of work. It was suggested that this approach might be included as an option in the guidance on discretion.
• Preponderance was considered to be an acceptable method to use, although a clear definition and explanation of how it worked would be required in the guidance documentation.
• It was suggested that ARSC's argument that exit velocity should be applied equally to all students, rather than only to students whose GPA fell in the zones of discretion, could also be made for the other methods of discretion under discussion, such as the consideration of the unrounded mean.
• Concerns were raised at the practice of referring to the unrounded mean, as it was noted that this information was not held in MyCampus and therefore Schools would be using local data as part of their consideration of final degree classifications. It was also suggested that the unrounded mean would only affect final classifications in a very small number of cases.
• The guidance should reiterate the need for clear minutes from Boards of Examiners on all decisions regarding students in the zones of discretion.  

At the conclusion of discussion no consensus was reached and it was agreed that EdPSC should be invited to consider the proposals put forward by ARSC, along with the points made by ASC, in order to decide which methods for determining discretion should be permitted within the University. Thereafter, guidelines would be drawn up which would include clear definitions of the criteria to be used.

Review of Operation of the Code of Assessment in relation to the assessment of professional degrees: Schedule B

ARSC had received a paper from Professor Evans in the School of Veterinary Medicine setting out various issues relating to the way professional areas used Schedules A and B in their assessments. This revealed a wide range of practice in the way different assessments were marked, and marks recorded. To some extent this reflected the requirements of different professional bodies.

It was noted that Schedule B was used mainly in relation to OSCEs (Objective Structured Clinical Examinations) and that the extent to which OSCEs measured underpinning knowledge in addition to clinical competence was changing and was variable. Noting that other subject areas which measured practical or professional competence did not use Schedule B (e.g. Law and scientific laboratory work) ARSC had concluded that the current operation of Schedule B did not appear to be fit for purpose.

Professor Cotton agreed that there were currently difficulties with using Schedule B and that the need for Medicine and other similar disciplines to adhere to both University regulation and professional requirements often created tension. He suggested that a review of the philosophy and principles of assessment in the professional degrees would be welcomed by the Medical School, although he advised that this was likely to be a lengthy process.

ASC approved the proposal that ARSC should undertake further work to explore the possibility of adopting a universal schedule of assessment which would involve consultation with Schools and benchmarking of practice elsewhere.

Credit loads for Study Abroad

It was reported that following ASC's recent consideration of cases where study abroad students had reduced their workloads in their overseas institution, the Clerk of Senate had met with staff from RIO to gather information on current processes for determining study loads and the following points had been noted:

• Glasgow students were required to take the full-time load of the host institution and if a range of workloads was indicated, students were required to take the highest load.
• Students often contacted RIO regarding excessive workloads and sometimes it appeared that informal arrangements were made at School level to reduce the load.
• There was a need to build up knowledge on representative full-time loads, based on students' experiences of different subjects at different institutions.

ASC agreed that the following issues recommended by ARSC should be adopted as policy rather than included in regulations:

• information on normal full-time loads at overseas institutions where students studied should be held centrally by the University (RIO);
• the 'normal' rather than maximum full-time load of each host institution should be established and followed by our visiting students;
• language factors should not be taken into account when determining a reasonable load for a student;
• the course convener/head of subject should make sure in advance of the student going abroad that a clear curriculum and sensible workload was arranged, taking into consideration previous students' experiences in the same programme
• where students found workloads excessive, they would be required to provide evidence in submitting any claim for a reduced workload which would need to include information regarding the norm for students of that institution. Claims for reduced loads would be determined jointly by the College Mobility Officer and Dean of Learning & Teaching with all decisions reported to RIO for inclusion in their information on normal full-time loads.

Action: Senate Office

Maximum Duration of Study/breaks in Honours study

It was noted that ARSC had considered degree regulations on maximum duration of study which were used to ensure continuity of study and coherence of the award. Durations were variable across disciplines and differences in regulatory wording meant that in some areas the specified durations were absolute, whereas in others further extensions could be permitted in particular circumstances. The following principles were noted:

• The maximum duration referred to the maximum duration of study for the student as the number of years from first registration (rather than the number of sessions the student had attended).
• Use of the word 'normally' within regulations enabled extensions to be granted in exceptional circumstances, this would be done by registering the student on an irregular curriculum.
• Exceptions could be granted for programmes operating under the PGT generic regulations, in extreme situations where staff accepted there was a case, again by permitting study on an irregular curriculum.
• Students should progress immediately from Junior Honours to Senior Honours, although exceptions could be made on a case-by-case basis allowing students to proceed to Senior Honours following a gap after Junior Honours.  

Operation of Progress Committees

It was noted the College of MVLS had recognised and accepted variety in practice in the operation of progress within the College, and a number of principles had also been agreed by the College. ARSC had been invited to comment on the proposed principle that meetings to discuss student progress should be convened separately from Exam Boards, and it was agreed that this would be good practice. It was also noted that in many areas of the University, Progress Committees were convened separately from Exam Boards as progress could only be determined when results had been reported for more than one subject area. ARSC considered it important that whatever arrangements were made, these should be made known in advance, so that students would be aware of any opportunity to present their case. 

ASC noted that the following revised process for reporting on jointly delivered degree programmes was currently under consultation:

College Level

1. Joint Boards meet.

2. Convener and Clerk of the Joint Board produce a report using a Joint Board template covering the following areas:

• Changes to board membership and remit;
• Admissions;
• Annual Programme Monitoring;
• Summary of the financial report;
• Report from student representatives;
• Staffing;
• External Examiners' reports;
• Internationalisation issues.

3. Joint Board reports collated at College level and scrutinised by ASC reviewers. A summary report of all College Joint Boards based on the comments of the ASC reviewers would be submitted to ASC by each College. The summary report sent to ASC would provide brief details on the above issues, followed by a brief commentary identifying key issues to be brought to the attention of ASC.

University Level

College summary reports submitted to ASC. Scrutiny of College summary reports would take place at the meeting of ASC and approval sought, thereafter following the normal route for approved reports form ASC.

ASC was content with this proposal noting that implementation was scheduled for September 2012. 

The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 25 May 2012 at 9.30am in the Melville Room.