University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Revised Minute of Meeting held on Friday 25 May 2012 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room
Dr Jack Aitken, Professor Vince Bissell, Professor Frank Coton, Professor Philip Cotton, Professor Neil Evans, Professor Thomas Guthrie, Mr James Harrison, Mr Matthew Hastings, Professor Bob Hill, Professor Carole Hough, Professor Alice Jenkins, Dr Vassiliki Kolocotroni, Dr Martin Macauley, Ms Helen McAvoy (vice Mr George Tait), Dr Kevin O'Dell, Dr Allison Orr, Ms Anna Phelan, Dr Bill Stewart, Professor David Watt (Convener).
In Attendance:Ms Helen Butcher, Mrs Eleanor Waugh, Mrs Lesley Fielding (for item ASC/2011/63).
Apologies:Dr Barbara Burns, Professor Graham Caie, Dr Mike Carroll, Dr Karen Renaud.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as a correct record.
It was noted that the items identified for attention within each College report were being collated for dissemination to appropriate officers. Responses will be submitted to the next meeting of ASC.
ASC noted that EdPSC had agreed the proposals from ARSC regarding the Guidelines on Discretion, with the additional provision that exit velocity could be adopted as a further criterion in the exercise of discretion.
Mrs Lesley Fielding from the Senate Office introduced the report which contained a summary of matters raised by external examiners during 2010-11. Members were advised that there had been a 16% drop in the number of reports submitted compared to previous years and this coincided with the timing of the introduction of the new online system for processing external examiner reports. Mrs Fielding reported that while the new system was bedding in well in the current session, difficulties experienced last year particularly in relation to access may have affected the return rate.
In 9% of reports external examiners had raised substantial issues requiring a response from the School. The response rate from Schools was lower than at the same point last session, so automatic reminders and further follow-up were planned to ensure that responses were received. ASC noted that in 19 cases concerns had been raised regarding the adequacy of staffing levels. Mrs Fielding advised that there had been a similar level of comments (18) in the previous year.
Professor Guthrie introduced the report and reminded members of the ongoing review of the the generic MRes regulations which ARSC had commenced in session 2011-12. At the end of session 2010-11 following a report from ARSC, ASC agreed to the proposed introduction of a set of regulations that would accommodate all PGT generic programmes and those programmes that currently fall under the generic MRes regulations. MRes programme coordinators from across the University had been consulted. EdPSC had approved the proposed regulations in June 2011. However, it was agreed that the regulations should be finally approved by DoGS before being recommended to Senate.
Members noted that the typical structure of generic MRes programmes differed from the generic PGT structure as follows:
PGT: 120 taught credits + 60 credits dissertation/other independent work.
MRes: 60 taught credits + 120 credits independent work (often comprised of 2 x 60 credit research projects).
(There are a number of MRes programmes consisting of 120 taught credits and 60 credits of independent work, and these are governed by the existing generic PGT regulations.)
Subsequent feedback from DoGS indicated disquiet in relation to the proposed requirements for award. Current generic PGT regulations require a grade point average of 12 (equivalent to C3) over 120 taught credits and a minimum grade D3 on the 60 credit dissertation. The proposal was that for programmes composed of 60 taught credits and two 60 credit projects (typically MRes), the standard required for award would be a grade point average of 12 (equivalent to C3) over the 60 taught credits and 60 of the credits derived from independent work together with a minimum of D3 on the remaining 60 credits of independent work. Comment from DoGS indicated a preference for requiring C3 in both projects. ARSC responded to this noting that D3 represented satisfactory achievement against Masters ILOs.
After continuing dialogue on the issue of the standard to be applied to progression and award for Masters programmes, ARSC reported to ASC that a wide range of views had been expressed in the most recent comments received from Graduate Schools and the views expressed by DoGS.
ASC was concerned to hear that some staff considered D grades in Masters assessment to represent a 'fail'. This was a misrepresentation of the Code of Assessment, as Schedule A described work that merited a D grade to be 'satisfactory'.
ASC noted that ARSC had suggested that with appropriate application of the Code of Assessment, the generic Masters regulations could adopt a D grade as the requirement for progress/award throughout and that the ILOs, and the marking of those ILOs, could be geared appropriately to represent a satisfactory level of performance at Masters level. However, the comments submitted by Graduate Schools reflected a reluctance to accept this position. The SRC representative on ASC reported that the SRC strongly supported the position of adopting grade D as the satisfactory level of performance to allow progression and the award of Masters degrees.
ASC noted the reluctance from Graduate Schools to adopt the grade D standard to represent an acceptable level of performance for progress and award, and noted that the most recent response from DoGS had indicated a willingness to accept the combined regulations proposed in 2011. These regulations required a grade point average of 12 (equivalent to C3) across 120 credits, including taught credits, and a D3 for the remaining 60 credits (dissertation or other independent project).
In the interests of achieving harmonisation of regulations across Masters programmes, the Committee agreed to propose the following Generic Regulation for introduction from the beginning of session 2012-13:
Combined MRes/PGT regulations in the form approved by EdPSC in June 2011 (see Appendix 1) with the additional requirement for the D3 in the final 60 credits (dissertation/independent project) to be achieved normally at the first attempt.
ASC also noted that the proposed regulations permitted a specific grade to be required on particular courses, as was currently the position in the PGT generic regulations. It was suggested that the existence of this provision was not well known, and could be promoted as a further threshold for preventing progression of weaker students who would struggle in the independent work. (For example, programmes could specify in course documentation that a C3 was required, normally at the first attempt, in Research Methods in order to progress/for award.)
The DoGS group had expressed the wish to return to a discussion regarding the standards adopted in the regulations but, given the lengthy period of consultation that had already been undertaken, ASC agreed to recommend that if approved, the combined regulations should be reviewed after three years of operation. If approved the review would therefore commence in autumn 2015.
ASC also noted that ARSC was taking forward its review of the operation of the Code of Assessment in relation to professional degrees, in particular Schedule B, and the possibility of adopting a universal schedule of assessment or refining Schedule B. The Convener of ARSC planned to meet with colleagues in the professional areas to discuss the issues raised, and it was suggested that representatives from all the relevant areas should meet together to ensure that all views were shared.
The Committee received details of the proposed revisions to the Code of Assessment for the 2012-13 University Calendar reflecting changes agreed by ASC during the current session. It was noted that new regulations for Assessment of Visiting Students were to be finalised and these would be approved out of committee.
ASC agreed to a further clarification of the wording of 16.38(b) and approved the revised Code of Assessment as detailed in Appendix 2.
In relation to 16.40(b) Mr Harrison from the SRC sought confirmation of where responsibility lay for decisions to opt-out from allowing up to 25% absence in cases of good cause. Professor Guthrie advised that this would be either at School or College level, and it was suggested that there should be consideration of introducing a standard approach for such opt-out decisions which would need to identify all opt-out clauses within the regulations. It was suggested that this could be reviewed by ARSC next session.
Action: Clerk and Convener of ARSC
Professor Hough sought confirmation of the operation of regulation 16.52(d)(i) in relation to the repeat options for students with good cause who had completed between 30 and 74% of the work required for Honours assessment. It was agreed that this would be taken forward through further dialogue with the Senate Office.
Action: Clerk
ASC/2011/65.1.1 College of Arts
ASC was pleased to note that the final proposal from the College of Arts had now met the conditions set by the PAG and therefore was approved for introduction in 2012-13.
MA Hons Archaeology - Major Change
ASC/2011/65.1.2 College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences
Following the completion of actions requested by the PAG, the following programmes in MVLS were approved for introduction in 2012-13.
Bachelor of Nursing - Major Change
BSc (MedSci)(Dent Sci) Clinical Medicine - Major Change
MSc Applied Medical Science (with specialisation in Diagnostics) - Major Change
MSc/PgD/PgC Global Mental Health - New
MSc/PgD Quantitative Methods in Biodiversity, Conservation and Epidemiology - Major Change
MSc (Dent Sci) Endodontics - New
MSc (Med Sci) Forensic Toxicology (Distance Learning for Practitioners) - Major Change
PgCert Advanced Lymphoedema Management - Major Change
PgD Child Health - Major Change
The undernoted programmes were approved for introduction in 2013-14.
BVMS - Major Change
MSc/PgD Health Technology Assessment - New
ASC was advised that the proposed major change to the MRes Biomedical Sciences (Cancer Studies) and MRes Biomedical Sciences (Cardiovascular Studies) had not been approved by the PAG as issues had been identified with the 70 taught credits on these programmes. The taught courses were shared with Honours students, but assessed differently for Honours and Masters levels. The notional learning hours of these 70 credits at Masters level had been questioned by the School, and it had been confirmed to them that where courses had shared teaching, separate courses were required for each level if they were to be assessed separately. In response, the School expressed concerns over the feasibility of completing the documentation required to create a new version of each course specifically for MRes students as over 30 courses were involved. The PAG had concluded that the College should be required to create these courses, correctly reflecting the learning hours and the assessment. But given the concerns raised by the School, the PAG had suggested that the timescale for this should be extended to completion of documentation by the start of academic session 2013-14. ASC endorsed the PAG's proposal and was advised that the PAG Convener, Professor Guthrie, had discussed the matter further with the Head of School and was hoping to bring a further solution to the PAG for consideration.
ASC/2011/65.1.3 College of Science & Engineering
Following the completion of actions requested by the PAG, the following programmes in Science & Engineering were approved for introduction in 2012-13.
BEng (Hons) Aeronautical Engineering (SIT) - New
BEng (Hons) Aerospace Systems (SIT) - New
BSc Chemical Studies - New
MSci Statistics with work placement - New
MSci Mobile Software Engineering - New
ASC noted that the PAG had not yet received evidence that actions had been completed for the undernoted proposal. Once the PAG had confirmed that actions were complete, the proposal would be submitted for final approval under summer powers by the Convener of ASC and the Clerk of Senate.
MSc Nanoscience and Nanotechnology - New
ASC/2011/65.1.4 College of Social Sciences
Following the completion of actions requested by the PAG, the following programmes in Social Sciences were approved for introduction in 2012-13.
MSc Corporate Governance and Accountability (originally proposed with the title 'MSc Governance and Accountability') - New
MSc Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) - New
MSc English Language Studies (originally proposed with the title 'MSc Working with World Englishes') - New
ASC noted that the proposed new programme PgCert Primary Science had not been recommended for approval because no evidence of consultation with the student body had been found in the documents selected for spot-checking. The College had subsequently advised that consultation had not taken place as it was not considered possible; however, the PAG Convener advised that this was required and therefore, approval was outstanding.
It was reported that the College had decided to delay the introduction of the new programme MSc Advanced Community Development until 2013-14 and a revised proposal would be resubmitted at a later date.
ASC received a report from the Programme & Course Approval Working Group which had considered measures to improve evidence of College Scrutiny of consultation documentation in the programme approval process. ASC approved the proposal to amend Section B of the Programme Proposal Support Document to require Colleges to affirm that consultations had taken place and responses considered appropriately.
Dr Macauley introduced the report from the Quality Officers Forum which proposed changes to the current policy and timetable for annual monitoring and reporting to ASC.
It was proposed that the responsiveness of the process could be improved by the separation of the Undergraduate and Postgraduate College Annual Monitoring Summaries as this would allow Undergraduate summaries to be completed sooner given their different teaching pattern. The report structures would be adapted to allow certain sections (e.g. factual data, engagement with strategy or processes) to be reported once only, allowing the Postgraduate report to focus on PG provision.
ASC agreed that the following reporting timetable should be implemented annually:
- Undergraduate College Annual Monitoring Summary - submission to the October meeting of Academic Standards Committee
- Postgraduate College Annual Monitoring Summary - submission to the February meeting of Academic Standards Committee
Dr Macauley reported that in the coming session the October deadline would be challenging given the heavy workload anticipated during September 2012. It was therefore agreed that for 2012-13 only, the Undergraduate CAMS should be considered by ASC one month later, at its meeting scheduled for 16 November 2012.
Members commented that while a faster reporting process to ASC would allow actions required at this level to be undertaken more quickly, there was a strong view that there should be more focus on ensuring that actions which could be taken School and College level should be attended to before reports reached ASC.
As a general point for all PSR reports, ASC noted that a number of issues identified by review panels did not have any specific recommendation attached to them, but the School was 'encouraged' or it was 'suggested' that action be taken. Members were concerned that in such cases, there was no mechanism for review of the response/action taken by the School. It was suggested that Panel Conveners should be asked to confirm whether any further recommendations should be added for such items, and the Senate Office should consider whether any further monitoring of other actions could be introduced.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2011/27.1.1 Management
ASC received the report of the review of the School of Management held on 12 and 13 March 20112. It was noted that there had been discussion on the issue of whether students may record lectures individually (with a recommendation that this be permitted), or whether the School should introduce a policy of recording, and uploading, all lectures. Members noted that this issue was also under consideration at University level. ASC approved the report and its 12 recommendations.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2011/67.1.2 School of Education
The report of the Review of the School of Education which had taken place on 27 and 28 February 2012 was submitted to the Committee very late. It was therefore agreed that final approval of the recommendations would take place out of committee, under summer powers, after both reviewers had an opportunity to consider the report in detail.
Members who had been able to review the report commented on a number of issues. Attention was drawn to paragraph 4.4.9 which referred to organisational issues surrounding school placements for both undergraduate and postgraduate students and it was agreed that a recommendation should be included in relation to the concerns raised. The report on the impact of the University's restructuring on the School which referred to constraints arising from staffing resources was noted. It was agreed that the second element of recommendation 5 which asked for serious consideration to be given to investing in additional administrative resource for the School should be directed to the Head of College, rather than the Head of School.
Action: Senate Office
Attention was also drawn to the discussion on assessment feedback in paragraph 4.3.6 and it was requested that the University policy on the standard turnaround time should be clarified as members were uncertain that the time stated in the report was correct.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2011/67.1.3 School of Law
ASC received the report of the review of the School of Law held on 1 and 2 March 2012.
A number of recommendations were discussed and amendments were suggested.
- Members noted the comments on feedback to students in paragraph 3.3.5 where some negative perceptions from students had been reported. It was suggested that students could overlook some feedback, particularly when it was provided verbally, and therefore clearer guidance on what was included as feedback activity would be useful. In noting recommendation 3 on feedback it was suggested that the process of feedback should be considered alongside the structure and communication.
- With regard to recommendation 10, it was agreed that the Heads of School required to engage with this action should be specified, rather than the current reference to all Heads of School.
- In light of the concerns raised regarding the application of the Code of Assessment within the School of Law, it was suggested that recommendation 11 could be revised to be more specific about the action required and could include raising awareness of the Code of Assessment among staff.
- For recommendation 12, it was suggested that the recommendation should include reference to the requirement that advisers of study should meet with their advisees at least once per academic session.
- In considering recommendation 13, it was agreed that responsibility for action should lie with the Head of College as there were resource implications in resolving the issues of room size and technological limitations on the Diploma in Legal Practice.
ASC approved the report and its 19 recommendations subject to review and amendment of recommendations 3, 10, 11, 12 and 13 as discussed above.
Action: Senate Office
Further comments were made on other aspects of the report. Attention was drawn to paragraph 3.3.7 and it was suggested that there should be a re-wording of the final sentence to remove the reference to 'venues' which was not meaningful in this context. Mr Harrison, the SRC representative, also reported concern at the lack of any commentary in the report on student engagement in the Law School as he was aware of activity in this area and considered that detail could have been included in Section 5 Assuring and Enhancing the Quality of the Student's Learning Experience as this was a very short section of the report as it stood. Mr Harrison also referred to recommendation 18 and requested that the SRC Advice Centre be kept informed of any development of a Law Clinic as it was likely that some of their existing activity could complement the work of a new Law Clinic.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2011/67.1.4 School of Medicine - U/G
The report of the review of undergraduate provision in the School of Medicine was not yet available to the Committee. This would be submitted at a later date and considered for approval under summer powers.
ASC/2011/67.1.5 School of Physics & Astronomy
ASC received the report of the review of the School of Physics & Astronomy held on 13 and 14 February 2012. It was noted that recommendation 5 related to Demonstrators' duties and introducing a system to provide feedback on their performance which had also been recommended at their previous review in 2006. With regard to recommendation 15, it was suggested that once the Senate Office had provided guidance on the operation of the Code of Assessment penalties for late submission of coursework in relation to sub-components of coursework, there should be a check to see whether any further recommendation was required in respect of the School's application of this regulation.
Action: Senate Office
ASC approved the report and its 15 recommendations, noting a possible later clarification of recommendation 15.
ASC/2011/67.2.1 Central & East European Studies
ASC received an update on the progress CEES had made in the last 12 months in response to the recommendations arising from its Review held during 2010-11. ASC concurred with the Panel Convener's view that as far as possible the recommendations had been given full and appropriate consideration. It was agreed that updates on further progress should be provided in November 2012 for the following recommendations.
- Recommendation 1 - to update on the review of CEES level 2 courses;
- Recommendation 2 - to update on the change to Honours entry requirements after their application to the 2012-13 Honours intake;
- Recommendation 4 - to update further on increasing student involvement in recruitment activities.
ASC/2011/67.2.2 Music
ASC received an update on progress made during the last 12 months in respect of the recommendations arising from the review of Music held in February 2011. It was noted that the Panel Convener considered that appropriate consideration had been given to the recommendations and that in some areas actions were proposed but had not yet been implemented.
ASC agreed that in light of the Convener's comments on recommendations 4, 5 and 8 as detailed below, a follow-up report was required on these three recommendations, and this should be submitted to ASC in November 2012:
- the Convener noted that whilst he did not disagree with the approach proposed for Recommendation 4 relating to advice to MA entrants on the flexibility programme, he was not convinced that it fully addressed the need for training of Advisers of Studies, to ensure clarity of advice to MA entrants;
- for Recommendation 5, the Convener noted that the issue around maintenance of the University-owned musical equipment in the Concert Hall had the potential to go 'round in circles' but might be resolved through dialogue between the Head of College and the Secretary of Court;
- for the issue of Music's deployment of shrinking resources in Recommendation 8, the Convener acknowledged that the Subject was probably doing too much in terms of their limited resources but there was no suggested resolution by the Subject and therefore either the College should allocate more resources, or the Subject should remove courses and/or programmes.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2011/67.2.3 School of Psychology
ASC received an update on progress made during the last 12 months with the recommendations arising from the review of Psychology held in February 2011. The Panel Convener considered that adequate progress had been made, and ASC confirmed that there were no outstanding matters which required any further reporting.
ASC received a paper from the Senate Office detailing new procedures for the withdrawal and termination of collaborative arrangements to complement the existing guidance on development, approval and management of collaborative activity. ASC noted that the guidance was extensive as it covered procedures for the variety of collaborative arrangements available at Glasgow and included a termination action plan.
ASC approved the proposed procedure, noting that advice was available from the Collaborations Unit in the Senate Office for any colleagues involved with the ending of collaborative arrangements.
ASC received a paper which provided an update on the review of the Joint Board reporting process noted at the previous meeting. Members noted that the consultation with Colleges had been completed and that the new reporting structure considered at the last meeting was proposed.
ASC agreed to the process minuted at the last meeting (see ASC/2011/56) which would be introduced in session 2012-13. In the new reporting structure ASC reviewers would scrutinise College Joint Board Reports and a template for these reports was also approved. ASC would be asked to evaluate the new structure in April or May 2013 after the first round of reporting had been completed.
Members received the above report on joint provision with Christie's Education. ASC approved the following items:
- the revised Membership of the Joint Board for Session 2011-12;
- an amendment of the revalidation date for Master of Arts/Graduate Diploma in History of Art and Art-World Practice from September 2013 to December 2014 in order that it be realigned to the six year revalidation cycle;
- the Statement of Intent for a new programme - MSc Art, Law and Business, which comprised 200 credits which was more than the normal MSc credit volume in order to accommodate an additional three month study and placement within the degree's structure;
- recognition of a new member of staff as a teacher of the University.
ASC received the above review report which included proposed revalidation of three programmes. The Committee approved the following programmes for re-validation for a period of six years from 2012-2013:
- BA (Hons) Fine Art
- MLitt Fine Art Practice
- Master of Fine Arts (MFA)
ASC received and noted a report on actions relating to recommendations arising from previous validations of programmes delivered at GSA.
Members received the above report from the Liaison Committee of the University and SAC. ASC approved the membership of the Liaison Committee for 2011-12 and the proposed timetable for future validation events at SAC where programmes were grouped into subject groups. ASC also approved the six staff members recommended as recognised teachers of the University.
After receiving the above validation report, ASC approved the new degree BSc/BSc (Hons) Garden and Greenspace Design to be delivered at SAC from 2012-13 for six years as an award of the University of Glasgow.
ASC approved the revalidation of the following programmes (subject to conditions being met) from 2012-13 for six years.
BSc/BSc (Hons) Agriculture
BA/BA (Hons) Rural Business Management
MSc/PgDip Applied Poultry Science
MSc/PgDip Organic Farming
ASC agreed to the following dates for meetings during 2012-13:
Friday 5 October 2012
Friday 16 November 2012
Friday 15 February 2013
Tuesday 16 April 2013
Friday 24 May 2013
There were no items of reserved business.
Members were advised that Professor Watt was retiring as the Committee's convener after serving more than eight years in the role. The Committee joined Dr Aitken, Director of the Senate Office, in expressing sincere thanks to Professor Watt for his extensive contribution to the work of the Committee over the period of his convenership.
The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 5 October 2012.
Created by: Ms Helen Butcher