University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Minute of Meeting held on Friday 15 February 2013 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room
Mr Razvan Balaban, Professor John Briggs, Dr Rhona Brown (vice Dr Penny Morris), Professor Phil Cotton, Professor Christine Edwards, Professor Thomas Guthrie (Convener), Mr Matthew Hastings, Professor Bob Hill, Professor Alice Jenkins, Ms Helen McAvoy (vice Mr George Tait), Dr Anna Morgan-Thomas, Dr Kevin O'Dell, Dr Joanne Ramsey, Dr Bill Stewart, Mrs Eleanor Waugh.
In Attendance:Ms Helen Butcher, Ms Moyra Boland (for item ASC/2012/38), Dr David Bain (for item ASC/2012/39.2).
Apologies:Dr Jack Aitken, Dr Kenny Brophy, Dr Barbara Burns, Professor Frank Coton, Professor Neil Evans, Dr Martin Macauley, Dr Allison Orr, Ms Anna Phelan, Dr Karen Renaud.
Welcome
The Convener welcomed Dr J Ramsey to her first meeting and Dr R Brown, who was attending on behalf of Dr P Morris, whilst she was on sabbatical.
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 November 2012 were approved as a correct record.
Following a query arising from the above report, it was noted that Professor Evans had confirmed that reassessment was only being used where the original grade was below the threshold standard.
It was noted that information on i) penalties for late submission of sub-components of coursework, and ii) considering good cause claims where the threshold grade had been met, had been added to the Guide to the Code of Assessment. Changes relating to the definition of non submission versus late submission of coursework would be introduced in 2013-14.
It was confirmed that the University Guidelines for Board of Examiners on the Exercise of Discretion had been added to the Guide to the Code of Assessment and would be disseminated to Schools and College in February.
Ms Boland attended the meeting to speak to the paper on planned changes to the current undergraduate curriculum for Education and entry to the teaching profession. Ms Boland outlined current factors which were driving the proposal to introduce Masters level courses in the undergraduate curriculum. Factors included: consistent research findings that children benefitted from Masters-level teachers; internationally the Bologna structure in most European countries provided teacher education with 3 years at undergraduate level and 2 years at postgraduate; the current political imperative in Scotland to move teaching towards a Masters-level profession, along with the continuing lifelong learning agenda. In response, the School of Education wished to redesign the current BEd programme to ensure that every graduate had experienced a significant amount of Masters level learning. She also explained that the current level 11 one year Postgraduate Diploma in Education offered to graduates from other disciplines would remain as a route into the profession.
For students wishing to take an undergraduate route to becoming a teacher the following structure was being proposed:
| Degree Credit Structure | Exit Points for Students | |
| Year 1 |
120 Credits |
|
| Year 2 |
120 Credits |
|
| Year 3 | 120 Credits |
Exit with Ordinary Degree or Exit to Hons Degree without Teaching Qualification or Progress to year 4 (as below) |
| Year 4 | 90 Credits at Level 11, 30 Credits at Level 10 |
Exit with Masters Diploma in Education with Teaching Qualification |
| Year 5 | 90 Credits at Level 11 | Flexible timeframe over a 5year period where remaining Master Credits can be completed to Masters Degree |
It was explained that at the end of Year 3, students would make a decision on whether they wished to continue on a programme leading to a teaching qualification and entry into the profession. If not, they would have the exit options of either an Ordinary Degree award without any further study, or transfer to the final year of an Honours degree in Education without Teaching Qualification. Those wishing to enter the profession would progress into a fourth year which included 90 credits of Masters level (11) study, and on successful completion would enter the teaching profession with a Masters Diploma in Education. Thereafter there would be an opportunity to complete a fifth and final year (with a part-time option) and gain a Masters Degree.
In response to questions from members, it was explained that the first three years of the curriculum would be designed to prepare students for the shift to Masters level study in the fourth year, and in addition there was a significant amount of teaching practice in the early years to allow students to make the decision about professional entry at the end of year 3. The Masters level credits were specific to the teaching qualification route and would not be available to students taking the non-teaching route in year 4.
Members expressed some concern at the jump to Masters level in year 4 as it was noted that in other five year integrated degrees there was a sequential progression through levels 7 - 11. In response members were advised that the curriculum would be designed to allow sufficient preparation in years 1 to 3 and that the relatively high progression threshold of C3 average would be required for entry to year 4 of the Masters Diploma which would commence with 30 credits at Level 10. It was also pointed out that some current students managed the transition from level 9 to a Masters level year on the PGDE as some successful applicants were admitted to the programme with an Ordinary degree.
In considering the structure of the degree further, some concerns were raised regarding the final year. It was noted that currently this comprised only 90 credits which would lead to a credit total of 570 for the Masters degree which was 30 credits short of the SCQF minimum for a Masters award following an integrated programme from undergraduate to postgraduate study. There was also concern that the level of flexibility in the fifth year could affect completion rates particularly for those planning to take a number of years of combined study and teaching on the part-time route.
While ASC was supportive of the proposal and the forward-looking approach being taken by the School, it was agreed that there were a number of issues which required further information or expansion before ASC could make a firm in-principle decision. Clarification was therefore sought on the following to allow further discussion at the next meeting:
- The total number of credits for the full five year degree and detailed consideration of the total amount of level 11 credit on the programme (and the impact of the level 11 credit in year 4 particularly);
- Exit provision for students in year 4 who fail to achieve the requirements for the Masters Diploma, or who at this later stage decide against the vocational option and no longer wish to pursue a career in teaching;
- Support for students undertaking the final stage to attain the Masters degree, ensuring they could balance the work in their new career with academic study;
- Consideration of the final award and whether a degree classification would be offered for the integrated Masters degree.
It was agreed that Ms Boland would liaise with the clerk out of committee regarding the timescales for reporting to EdPSC, and preparation of the new programme proposal for submission through standard procedures.
Action: MB/Clerk of ASC
New Award
It was noted that the proposed Masters Diploma in Education would be a new award of the University and would therefore require formal approval from EdPSC. Members questioned the competitiveness of the Masters Diploma qualification as a replacement for the BEd Honours degree and Ms Boland advised that with the focus shifting more to a professional qualification the Diploma qualification would be consistent with this. She also confirmed that the General Teaching Council for Scotland were supportive of the early-stage proposals from the School of Education.
The overview of the key issues across the College reports, and the annual monitoring process, was deferred to the next meeting, by which time it was anticipated that a complete set of reports from all four Colleges would be available.
Following consideration of the reports from Arts and Social Sciences as detailed below, two issues relating to structure of the Annual Monitoring forms were identified for referring to the Quality Officers' Forum: firstly, it was agreed that there should be clarification on the content required for the Equality and Diversity section as there had been a tendency to include information on individual issues rather than overall trends and it was suggested that consultation with the Equality & Diversity Committee would be useful; secondly, there was a need to provide clearer information on what should be covered under Development Opportunities and it was suggested that this section could be re-titled. There was a further suggestion from Arts that the items on Good Practice should be separated out from the Key Themes section and moved to the end of the report.
Action: Senate Office
Dr Bain spoke to the PGT College Annual Monitoring Summary for 2011-12. It was noted from the report that School Summary response rates had been good and also that there was an increasing sense of loop closing through information on progress with actions. A wide range of good practice had been identified and it was reported that External Examiners were largely positive about student performance. ASC agreed that some background should be provided on the reported concern from one External Examiner regarding distortion caused by rounded aggregation results and the matter then referred to ARSC for action as necessary.
Action: DB and Clerk
The principal concerns highlighted in the report were issues continuing from previous reports relating to i) overburdened administrative staff and the need for subject-focused administrative support (both in work focus and physical location); and ii) ongoing concerns about the functioning of MyCampus.
No CAMS for postgraduate taught provision in MVLS was available for the meeting.
No CAMS for postgraduate taught provision in Science and Engineering was available for the meeting.
Professor Guthrie spoke to the CAMS for 2011-12 from Social Sciences which covered both undergraduate and postgraduate provision. He referred to the delays that had occurred in the production of School Annual Monitoring Summaries, identifying a need for the College to review its processes for the future to improve on timescales and accuracy in completion of the reports. In the College Summary, attention was drawn to the positive comments regarding the level of support provided by administrative staff across the College, although concerns similar to those in Arts were also raised in the case of the School of Political and Social Sciences which also had physically dispersed subject areas. MyCampus was also highlighted as an area of concern, as was the need for effective management of undergraduate admissions given the difficulties arising from the overshoot in numbers in the current session.
A wide range of good practice had been identified across all Schools and positive outcomes from professional accreditation visits were reported in the Adam Smith Business School and Law.
ASC considered the current process for reporting on the completion of PSR recommendations, and members were asked to consider whether the current 12 month timescale could be reduced as reports and conclusions on actions were being finalised some considerable time after the initial review event. It was noted that when Subject Reviews were first set up, shorter timescales had been in place with the first report on actions being made 6 months after the review report was finalised; however this had been revised to 12 months as the majority of recommendations were not been met within this timescale. It was agreed that reintroducing a shorter reporting timescale could help to get more straightforward actions completed quickly and that reports could be structured to distinguish between short and longer action deadlines with the latter being included in the 6 or 9 month report in the form of an action plan. ASC agreed that the Senate Office should consider these issues with a view to shortening the 12 month reports, and devising a template for the new reports. This would be reported back to the committee in April.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2012/40.1.1 School of Life Sciences
ASC received the report on recommendations arising from the review of Life Sciences which had taken place in October 2011. Recommendation 1 had requested the redevelopment of the final year of the MSci with work placement to provide SCQF Level 11 attainment at this final stage. ASC noted that the subsequent review of the programme structure had led to the proposal to introduce a new 10 credit Level 11 course running through both semesters of the final year. Level 11 had also been brought into the work placement in the preceding year through the introduction of a series of Level 11 assignments in that year. Given that the majority of the final year remained at Level 10, ASC requested further detail on the deliberations and rationale which had led to this response to the recommendation and the proposed revision to the programme. This information was requested for the next meeting of ASC in order for the committee to make a final decision on the School's response to this recommendation.
ASC was content with responses to the remaining recommendations although a further update on progress with the following was requested for October 2013.
Recommendation 2 - while noting that good progress had been made with developing workload and finance models, it was agreed that a further update on the full roll-out of these processes would be useful. Recommendations 3 and 11 related to the review of ILOs and programme specifications, and noting that this would be a gradual process for the review of existing programmes, it was agreed that a progress report must be provided in 6 months. For recommendation 9, it was suggested that clarification should be given on how students would be advised of the pre-arrival online information pack that had been devised. In further noting the response to this recommendation, ASC agreed that it was reasonable to provide this resource online due to reasons of practicality and flexibility. It was suggested however, that the reference to distribution costs for international students should be removed as this should not be a significant factor given that appropriate resources should be allocated to accommodate recruited international students.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2012/40.2.1 Electronics & Electrical Engineering
ASC received an update on further progress made with a number of recommendations arising from the review of Electronics and Electrical Engineering in February 2011. It was agreed that good progress had been made and that there was no further need for any further follow-up.
ASC/2012/40.2.2 Music
ASC considered the update on issues relating to the recommendations arising from the review of Music in February 2011 which related to musical equipment maintenance, and other resource issues for the Subject. It was noted that progress was being made over resources and management for the maintenance of musical equipment with areas of responsibility for various significant pieces of equipment being identified. The Dean of Learning & Teaching for the College of Arts understood that the funding proposals cited in the report were being taken forward by the College Management Group and she agreed to check and confirm this position.
The Dean of Learning & Teaching also drew attention to the current concerns regarding the use of the foyer to the Concert Hall which was acoustically the same space as the Concert Hall itself and could therefore significantly disrupt classes, rehearsals and public concerts. ASC agreed that the reported concerns should be drawn to the attention of the Vice Principal (Strategy & Resources) once Professor Jenkins had checked the situation at College level.
Action: AJ & Clerk of ASC
ASC received two papers providing information on degree classifications for undergraduate Honours programmes and also PGT provision. For undergraduate degrees information was provided on the percent of Firsts and Good Honours degrees awarded by Subject area over the last two sessions. Detailed information showing the breakdown of figures for each award within subject areas was provided for 2012 graduates. There was also a comparison with other Russell Group Universities showing the percent of Good Honours degrees awarded in each institution over the last three years with data extracted from the last three league tables provided by The Complete University Guide.
PGT figures showed the percent of Merits and Distinctions awarded by degree type over the last two years in each College. The same information by degree programme in each School was shown for 2012 graduates.
Overall, the University's performance in awarding Good Honours degrees was comparable with the rest of the Russell Group - with 73% of Honours students achieving either a First or 2:1 classification at Glasgow. (Other Russell Group institutions ranged between 90.9% and 62.6%).
For both undergraduate and postgraduate classifications, members commented on the variability across subjects and even across degrees within the same subject areas or Schools. Percentages of Firsts awarded ranged from 50% to 0%. It was accepted that in some cases, cohort numbers were small and therefore percentage figures could be misleading, but even discounting smaller cohorts, the number of Firsts awarded ranged from 28% to 8%. In discussion, members agreed that there were a number of contextual issues which could lie behind the variation in performance. It was acknowledged that some degrees had higher entry tariffs (either in terms of admission to the University or through competitive admission to Honours in popular programmes where demand exceeded capacity) and this might affect final degree outcomes. It was also suggested that issues relating to grade distribution and full use of the marking scale might be pertinent to some academic disciplines.
Given the range in the percentage of firsts, 2:1s, distinctions and merits awarded in different areas, ASC agreed that potentially there could be an underlying issue of variable standards being applied across the University. It was agreed that this issue should be referred to EdPSC to consider whether any further action to investigate the underlying context of these data is required.
Action: Clerk
ASC received the report of the above meeting and noted the five recommendations made by the Revalidation Panel:
- Revision of World Religions to include a wider range of religions or amend title to reflect content more accurately.
- Review and expand Staff Development practices to reflect P&DR system. Use of the University's self evaluation form would be useful for reviewing current system.
- Consider increasing skills development for overseas students, providing assistance and/or training for staff with responsibility for managing overseas students.
- Consider introducing more diverse methods for learning, such as seminars and group work.
- Consider introducing more varied methods of assessment, including oral work and additional group work.
ASC approved the revalidation of the Bachelor of Theology and Master of Theology at the Free Church of Scotland College for a period of six years from September 2013. ASC noted that a report on progress with meeting the recommendations would be made at the Joint Board meeting in June and this would be reported to ASC in October 2013.
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 2012-13. It was noted that the Principal of the Free Church of Scotland, Professor Mackay, would be retiring on 30 June 2013 and that Professor Jasper would be representing the University on the interview panel for his replacement.
It was also reported that the partnership review was due at the end of session 2013-14, prior to the expiry of the current Memorandum of Agreement.
ASC approved that the following staff be recognised as teachers of the University:
Professor R J Akroyd, M.A., Ph.D., Dip.Th
Professor John L Mackay, MA, MLitt, BD
Professor John A MacLeod, MA, BD
Professor John R McIntosh, BA, MLitt, BD, PhD
ASC noted and approved the Quality Officers Forum remit and composition for session 2012-13.
ASC noted that the SCQF Level Descriptors had been revised and reissued. The review had not led to any major changes to the format or structure of the Level Descriptors, and the five underpinning characteristics had been retained. Instead, amendments had focused on: (i) ensuring that the language reflected more fully both the occupational and professional sectors, (ii) tightening up on the consistency and progression of terminology across levels and; (iii) a general tidy up of any possible anomalies.
The dates and memberships of the four PAGs scheduled for March 2013 were noted.
There were no items of reserved business.
The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Tuesday 16 April 2013 at 9.30am in the Melville Room.
Created by: Ms Helen Butcher