University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Minute of Meeting held on Friday 5 October 2012 at 10:00 AM in the Melville Room
Mr Razvan Balaban, Professor, Christine Edwards, Professor Neil Evans, Professor Thomas Guthrie (Convener), Mr Matthew Hastings, Professor Bob Hill, Professor Alice Jenkins, Dr Martin Macauley, Ms Helen McAvoy (vice Mr George Tait), Dr Kevin O'Dell, Ms Anna Phelan, Dr Karen Renaud, Dr Bill Stewart
In Attendance:Ms Helen Butcher, Mrs Eleanor Waugh.
Apologies:Dr Jack Aitken, Dr Barbara Burns, Professor John Briggs, Dr Kenny Brophy, Professor Frank Coton, Professor Phil Cotton, Dr Penny Morris
The Convener, Professor Guthrie, opened the meeting by welcoming the new members present; Mr Balaban, and Professor Edwards. He also advised members that the three College representatives for Social Sciences were yet to be confirmed.
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 25 May 2012 were approved as a correct record.
The Committee received feedback on EdPSC's consideration of proposals for the combined Generic regulations for PGT and MRes degrees. EdPSC had not reached a final position on the proposal and had sought clarification from ASC on the reason for recommending removal of the reassessment opportunity from the final 60 credits (dissertation/project) of the Masters awards. ASC suggested that one reason for this approach had been a focus on the MRes awards, acknowledging that these could be a stepping-stone to further research and therefore the need for a first attempt at the final piece of project work might be appropriate in ensuring that students were appropriately prepared for further research. On further reflection members agreed that the removal of the right to a reassessment in the dissertation/project would be a significant change for the current structure of PGT awards which not only permitted reassessment, but also did not cap the dissertation/project result.
It was therefore agreed that the proposed regulations for the combined PGT/MRes degrees should be revised to allow a second attempt in all elements. The proposed regulations therefore reflected those put forward by ASC to EdPSC in June 2011, and essentially required a grade point average of 12 (equivalent to C3) over the first 120 credits followed by a minimum grade of D3 on the final 60 credits of independent study. ASC was also advised that the Convener would be meeting with the Clerk of Senate and Vice Principal (Learning & Teaching) later in the month to discuss how to take forward these proposals given the variety of views which had been presented during the consultation.
ASC received an update on actions taken since the consideration of PSR reports at the previous meeting in May.
It was reported that after follow-up on various recommendations, the following reports were finalised and forwarded to relevant parties for action:
Education
Law
Management
Medicine (Undergraduate)
Physics & Astronomy
ASC also received a copy of the final report from the review of UG Medicine.
The Committee was also advised that the Senate Office had liaised with each of the Panel Conveners of the Reviews held in 2011-12 to confirm whether any items which had been reported as 'suggestions' or matters for 'encouragement' needed to be strengthened to recommendation level. No such items had been identified for upgrading. Forthcoming briefings for the 2012-13 Reviews would also refer to this issue to ensure appropriate usage of these terms in the review process.
Professor Guthrie reported that Professor Hill had agreed to take over the convenership of ARSC, and that his experience on the work of this committee would be of great value.
Members' attention was drawn to a query which had been raised regarding the operation of the programme approval process in relation procedures for suites of related programmes. The Committee was reminded that when suites of programmes had a similar structure and some common content, all with similar aims and intended learning outcomes, the process allowed for a sample proposal of one programme to be considered through the full scrutiny process after which, if successful, all related programmes could be approved on PIP without any further scrutiny. The question had arisen of whether following approval, further programmes could be added in subsequent years without further formal scrutiny. The Committee agreed that the principle remained the same irrespective of whether the programme had initially been approved in previous years and therefore agreed that further programmes could be added to suites of programmes if there was an assurance that these were sufficiently similar in structure, aims and ILOs with overlapping content.
Action: Senate Office
Professor Jenkins, Convener of the Programme & Course Approval Working Group (PCAWG), introduced the report of the meeting that had been held with Deans of Learning and Teaching to review the operation of the programme approval process during 2011-12.
The Committee noted the overall conclusion at the meeting and on the basis of this confirmed that existing programme approval arrangements should continue during 2012-13. The following issues were also raised for further enhancement of the process.
Members agreed with some of the concerns raised regarding the operation of the RIO traffic light system which involved an early-stage review of the potential viability of proposed new programmes. While it was agreed that market intelligence was needed along with promotion of new programmes to aid recruitment, members felt that the current system sometimes led to delays in taking proposals forward and also at times suffered due to a lack of expert information on the target market. It was felt that the system could be improved and that an initial step for this would be for RIO to review the traffic light system by comparing the pre-approval advice on viability with actual recruitment figures for the first two years' intake.
Action: Clerk to refer to RIO
It was agreed that the current terminology in PIP regarding the 'rejection' of proposals should be revised. Members agreed that in most cases 'rejected' proposals actually required modification prior to approval and therefore inaccurate terminology was being used. It was agreed that a new outcome option of 'changes required' should be introduced to the system. Ms Phelan confirmed that this change would be possible in the system.
Action: Clerk to refer to PIP
The final area requiring attention was the question of how course changes were notified to interested parties. This was particularly challenging for level 1 and 2 courses which contributed to a vast number of programme plans. It was noted that currently there was no automated way to connect courses to plans and alert programme/plan co-ordinators of the impact of changes in their own area. Members agreed that this was a significant issue that required addressing and that only some types of changes would be significant e.g. changes to credit ratings or course prerequisites. It was also reported that there was evidence that course changes were not always being fed into programme plans and also that plans and programme specifications were not staying in synch in terms of data accuracy as there was no link between the data in these two documents - one being generated on MyCampus and the other on PIP.
Following discussion, the Committee agreed on the following points:
- it was not sufficient to continue to rely on a manual process of updating plans and programme specifications in light of approved course changes;
- significant course changes needed to be identified automatically;
- a clear process was needed to establish who should be notified of course changes and who should be responsible for effecting associated updates to plans and programme specifications.
It was agreed that Ms Phelan would investigate a process for identifying specified types of changes on PIP, and PCAWG would consider the process or processes that should be put in place across the University to identify roles and responsibilities for ensuring effective and timely updating of Mycampus plans and programme specifications.
Action: AP and Clerk of PCAWG
ASC received a report detailing the responses received on matters identified for the attention of the University in the College Annual Monitoring Summaries (Session 2010-11) presented to ASC in April 2012. In reviewing the responses members noted the following points:
- The response from the Head of the College of Arts on p2 had referred to the University's Code of Practice on Student Representation as an SRC policy, however it was confirmed that this policy had been derived from the Student Support and Development Committee and was developed by the Senate Office with input from SRC.
- In reference to the issue in MVLS relating to the suitability of marking descriptors (p11), ASC noted that this matter would also be addressed through the review of Schedule B of the Code of Assessment which was being taken forward by the Academic Regulations Sub-Committee.
- Attention was drawn to the proposed review of PGT provision in the College of Social Sciences which would take into account the suggestion from the Adam Smith Business School that the 60 credit dissertation for the MSc might be replaced by a 40 credit project (p21). Members noted that such a proposal would require approval from ASC as it would involve a deviation from the current provision in the generic regulations for PGT awards.
ASC also confirmed that the following matters be taken forward:
i) The issues of maternity cover and conference support detailed in section A1 to be referred to Heads of School in the College of Arts;
ii) RIO to take forward the matter of the academic role in the PGT admissions process with the College of Arts (section A5).
Taking account of these factors, the responses detailed in the report would be circulated to the College and School Quality Officers who contributed to the Annual Monitoring Report, and also published online.
ASC/2012/6.1.1 2011-12: Summary of Recommendations
ASC considered the report on the recommendations made by PSR Review Panels in Session 2011-12. This had identified two main themes arising from the recommendations: Resources for Learning and Teaching and Student Support. A number of issues arising from the recommendations which might require attention at a broader level, either across Colleges or the University as a whole were identified. Arising from these ASC agreed to the following:
- Heads of College (or nominees) should meet with Human Resource colleagues to discuss possible College or University-wide training for the following categories of staff: Probationers, University Teachers, and GTAs;
- it was good practice for assessment schedules to be published in course documentation and therefore a University-wide template for course assessment schedules covering the feedback process should be devised.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2012/6.1.2 2011-12: Summary of Good Practice / Key Strengths
Members noted the report which identified themes of good practice arising out of the PSR Review reports for 2011-12. A total of 40 areas of good practice had been highlighted with 23 of these identified for consideration for University-wide dissemination. ASC was pleased to note these items, although it was suggested that some were fairly subject-specific and therefore might not be appropriate for wider dissemination. The piloting of a national e-portfolio as a tool for preparation for further study and professional development in Medicine was identified as such. It was therefore suggested that a final check of the applicability of items in other areas should be made before undertaking the University-wide dissemination.
Action: Senate Office
Ms Muir from the Senate Office introduced the report and reminded members that previously ASC had agreed that for an award of a University of Glasgow degree under double/multiple and joint degree arrangements, students should normally have studied for at least 50% of the time at Glasgow. Further consideration by the Deans of Graduate Studies had suggested that account should be taken of arrangements where there were more than two partners and it was therefore proposed that the minimum amount of study should be proportionate to the number of institutions at which the student studied, with an absolute minimum limit of 25% of study at Glasgow being possible for an award of a degree from the University.
ASC agreed to confirm this proposed policy amendment. It was noted that these types of degrees were mainly postgraduate, and that current arrangements at Glasgow did not involve any agreements with more than one partner for individual awards. Members agreed that it was useful to increase the flexibility of regulations to allow for future developments. Erasmus Mundus agreements were also alluded to as it was known that these could involve multiple partners, and it was suggested that while the 25% minimum was a relaxation on the current position, even this level of study at Glasgow might potentially be restrictive to some agreements.
In introducing this report, Ms Muir reminded members that the annual report was the key document used by the University in its role of overseeing arrangements with its four Validated Institutions (VIs): Glasgow School of Art; Scottish Agricultural College; Christie's Education; and, the Free Church of Scotland College. The purpose of the revised guidance was to enhance the annual reports which currently tended to provide a high volume of content incorporating various quality assurance reports (annual monitoring, validation reports etc) but with little reflection on the quality of the student experience. In keeping with the University's own approach to enhancement and that of both the Scottish Funding Council and the QAA, the new approach placed an increased emphasis on reflection and critical evaluation, asking the VIs to provide an overview of the annual monitoring, while identifying activity which was working well and areas requiring improvement with information on actions to take forward improvements.
ASC welcomed the revised approach to the annual reporting process and approved the proposed revision to the guidance.
ASC received for comment the QAA's current consultation on Chapter B10 of the new Quality Code. This covered the management of collaborative arrangements and was open for public consultation until 19 October 2012. Ms Muir advised members that the new chapter had superseded two sections of the former QAA Code of Practice and while covering standard collaborative arrangements such as Validated Institutions and collaborations with international HEIs, it also encompassed work-based learning, placement learning and study abroad which were not traditionally viewed as collaborative activity in the same way as formal academic collaborations with other institutions.
Members noted that the coverage of traditional type collaborations in the new chapter was found to be useful and closely aligned to the former Section 2 of the Code of Practice, placing little in the way of additional requirements on the management of these types of arrangements.
In considering the references to work-based and placement learning, and study abroad, requirements were found to be more explicitly stated than previously. While the draft Chapter made some references to the need to consider requirements in terms of the proportionality of risk, there was concern that there was not an explicit recognition that some activity for work based/placement learning and study abroad was very small scale and therefore did not require the significant levels of management outlined. There was concern that if the recommended measures were applied universally to all activities, this could result in excessive bureaucracy in some areas. It was agreed that this view would be reflected in the University response which was currently being drafted.
ASC received and approved the Statement of Intent for the proposed MSc Visualisation pathways in (International Heritage) and (Serious Games). These would proceed to validation in 2013 with a view to the new pathways commencing in September 2013.
Attention was drawn to the proposal to integrate the validation event for these proposals into the broader Periodic Review event planned for the Digital Design studio. While ASC was content for this to be taken forward, it was agreed that the following information should be presented to the Senate Office in order to ensure sufficient rigour was applied to the validation process:
- an outline of the proposed structure for the Periodic Review and how it would incorporate the validation event, reporting on the amount of time allocated, and how it would be identified as a separate event;
- the proposed composition of the panel: identifying the external and the cognate member of the panel.
ASC agreed to recommend its proposed remit and composition for 2012-13 to EdPSC, see Appendix 1.
The proposed membership of ASC for 2012-13 was reported to the Committee. It was noted that the three representatives from the College of Social Sciences had not yet been confirmed. Once the full membership was agreed this would be recommended to EdPSC.
The Committee approved the membership of the four Programme Approval Groups for session 2012-13.
ASC received and noted the annual report from the University of Glasgow/Glasgow International College Joint Academic Management Board which provided a summary of the discussions of that Board during 2011-12.
ASC received the report from the Joint Board of the University of Glasgow and Free Church College meeting held on 31 May 2012. The Board's remit and membership for 2012-13 was approved.
ASC received the report from the Joint Board meeting of the University of Glasgow and Christie's Education held on 11 July 2012. ASC agreed to approve the remit and revised membership of the Joint Board for 2012-13.
An outline planning document relating to the proposed introduction of a PgCert/PgDip/MSc in Professional Agricultural Practice was received from the Scottish Agricultural College. ASC approved the document noting that the validation would be arranged for 2013 with a view to receiving the first student intake in session 2013-14. It was also noted that the proposed programme would be covered by the University's generic regulations for PGT degrees.
ASC received a report on PSRB accreditation activity during 2010-11 and 2011-12 which showed that reviews had been carried out in the following disciplines:
2010-11
Adult and Continuing Education
Mechanical Engineering
2011-12
Accounting and Finance
Business School
Clinical Psychology
Educational Studies
Electronics and Electrical Engineering
Law
Mathematics and Statistics
Medicine
Nursing and Health Care
Urban Studies
A review of accreditations in 2011-12 in preparation for the implementation of the Key Information Sets (KIS) had highlighted a number of data quality issues with regard to PSRB accreditation data. As a result, future annual reviews of all accreditations would involve School Quality Officers who would be requested to confirm or update accreditation information per School in advance of the University's annual report to the Scottish Funding Council and Academic Standards Committee.
ASC received and noted a report detailing new programmes and major changes to programmes which had been approved by the Convener and Clerk of Senate under summer powers either following fast-track scrutiny or carry forward from the proposals considered by the Semester 2 PAGs.
The following programmes were approved for 2012-13. [Proposals are for new programmes unless marked with * which denotes a major change to a current programme].
College of Social Sciences
LLM Extended
MSc Psychological Studies*
Postgraduate Certificate in Russian Language
Postgraduate Certificate in Russian Language for Social Scientists
Postgraduate Diploma in Russian Language
Postgraduate Diploma in Russian for Social Scientists
College of Science & Engineering
MSc Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
It was also reported that the following programmes had not yet been approved:
College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences
MRes Biomedical Sciences (Cancer Studies)
MRes Biomedical Sciences (Cardiovascular Studies)
The School of Life Sciences had decided that more time was needed to address the issues raised in relation to assessment. They therefore planned to submit new proposals during 2012-13 with a view to including the new programmes in the Calendar for the first time in 2013-14.
College of Social Sciences
PgCert Primary Science
Approval of this proposal considered at the Semester 2 PAG remained unconfirmed as requests for appropriate student consultations had not yet been met.
ASC noted the numbers of new courses and course amendments processed through PIP during session 2012-13. In most cases, the number of new course proposals and course changes had reduced from the previous year.
There were no items of reserved business.
The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 16 November 2012 at 9.30 a.m. in the Melville Room.
Created by: Ms Helen Butcher