University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Minute of Meeting held on Tuesday 16 April 2013 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room
Mr Razvan Balaban, Professor John Briggs, Dr Kenny Brophy, Dr Rhona Brown (vice Dr Penny Morris), Professor Christine Edwards, Professor Neil Evans, Professor Thomas Guthrie (Convener), Professor Bob Hill, Ms Helen McAvoy (vice Mr George Tait), Dr Martin Macauley, Dr Kevin O'Dell, Dr Allison Orr, Dr Joanne Ramsey, Dr Bill Stewart.
In Attendance:Ms Helen Butcher, Mrs Catherine Omand, Ms Moyra Boland and Dr Beth Dickson (for item ASC/2012/53), Professor John Marsh and Professor Scott Roy (for item ASC/2012/54), Dr Iain Johnstone (for item ASC/2012/56.2).
Apologies:Dr Jack Aitken, Dr Barbara Burns, Professor Frank Coton, Mr Matthew Hastings, Professor Alice Jenkins, Dr Anna Morgan-Thomas, Dr Anna O'Neill, Ms Anna Phelan, Dr Karen Renaud, Mrs Eleanor Waugh.
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 15 February 2013 were approved as an accurate record.
ASC noted that EdPSC had received the report on degree classifications, considered previously by ASC, and had raised the issue of the need for more historical data. Professor Coton had therefore recommended that it would be helpful for the Planning Office to provide 3 years of data (2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12) in a form that allowed easy comparison across years. This would allow ASC and EdPSC to have a clearer indication of any underlying trend and how it compared with the Russell Group during the same period. It was noted that the issue regarding the accuracy of the stated number of BSc Combined (Joint) Honours degree programmes was yet to be resolved.
Action: Clerk of ASC
Ms Clare Barnes, Senate Office, was in attendance to present a short overview arising from the College Annual Monitoring summaries. ASC was reminded of the changes made to the annual monitoring process, with Colleges providing undergraduate and taught postgraduate summaries to ASC and that the timetable had been brought forward to allow for a quicker response to reports. The changes had met limited success, with three Colleges meeting the November deadline for submission of the Undergraduate AMS and two submitted on time in February for the PGT AMS. However, two introductory sessions had been arranged to support the AMR process and Quality Officers and Schools agreed that the process had improved with issues dealt with at School and College as appropriate.
In addition to the overview of the Undergraduate AMS previously received by ASC at its November meeting, the following overall key issues were noted:
- The impact of MyCampus with all Schools raising concerns, in particular, dissatisfaction with the functionality, inadequate student interface, the impact on academic and administrative workload and ongoing difficulties with timetabling.
- Inadequate localised administrative support which was having implications on student support (it should however be noted that reports also highlighted the excellent support provided by administrative staff).
- The heavy requirements placed on academic staff and the question of whether the University's workload model was fit for purpose.
Ms Barnes further reported that further review of the process and a review of the role of the Quality Officers would be undertaken by the Quality Officers Forum.
In addition to that reported under item ASC/2012/51.1, Professor Evans, College Quality Officer, highlighted that MVLS had also raised issues regarding accommodation and transport issues for students travelling between Garscube and Gilmorehill; the central room booking system with last minute changes, unsuitable rooms and lack of availability. However, it was also highlighted that the College of MVLS had made significant effort to engage with the University's Learning and Teaching strategy and the College had made progress in addressing key issues from the previous session's annual monitoring which was engaging staff and students more with the process.
Dr Macauley, College Quality Officer, advised that the College of Science & Engineering had concern regarding the variability of taught postgraduate student ability and that Subjects had a better understanding than the Research and International Office (RIO) on what was expected from the student undertaking taught postgraduate study. The January intake was also reported to cause problems as students commenced study in Semester 2 where some courses had already commenced in Semester 1. There was also concern that PGT project supervision over the summer vacation was reducing time for academic research. Dr Macauley also reiterated the difficulties experienced with MyCampus and the need for additional administrative support.
ASC approved the above reports and recommended that EdPSC considered the following:
- The impact of the expansion of the Taught Postgraduate provision on the workloads of academic staff, and the ability for academic staff to undertake other responsibilities over summer, particularly in relation to research activity.
- Reconsideration of the January intake on PGT programmes which limited potential for students to participate on induction programmes and some courses that covered both Semesters 1 and 2.
ASC also noted that action was required at University level to ensure that problems with the Room Booking system were resolved. In addition it was agreed that there was a need to consider the interface between MyCampus and staff time with a view to increasing administrative support to ensure that less academic staff resource was used in operating MyCampus.
The above, and other items detailed in the reports, would be directed to the relevant University officers requesting a response in September for reporting to ASC in October 2013.
Action: Clerk to ASC
Following consideration of the three PAG reports detailed below, ASC agreed that the annual update of guidance on the programme approval process should be used as an opportunity to introduce or clarify current information in the following areas:
- Emphasis on the need for full College scrutiny of proposals prior to their submission to PAGs, with guidance for scrutineers/reviewers tailored for different groups in the process (College Boards of Studies; PAG members, student representatives);
- Clarity on when programme specification documents could cover more than one degree award;
- Inclusion of information on part-time routes in programme specifications;
- Ensuring adequate information on transferrable skills and the preparation for these, such as foreign language requirements, is included in programme specifications;
- Emphasis of the need for clarity in the presentation of programme specifications, reminding colleagues that following approval these documents would be placed in the public domain;
- Separate guidance on the writing of Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) to be produced for undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes, using exemplars and clarifying appropriate verbs for each level to assist with consistency in quality.
These actions would be taken forward by the Senate Office with input from the Learning and Teaching Centre for the guidance on ILO writing. Professor Edwards also offered to contribute to the preparation of specific PGT level guidance on ILOs.
Action: Senate Office
The Clerk of Senate, Professor John Briggs, thanked all PAG members for their work in scrutinising the College proposals and while he noted that the standard of documentation submitted had in some cases been disappointing, it was agreed that the PAGs were shown to have provided a critical role in ensuring the robustness of current procedures by taking action to prevent poor quality documentation from being approved and published.
ASC/2012/52.1.1 College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences
ASC received and noted the PAG report which had considered proposals from the College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences on 18 March 2013. It was noted that the PAG had recommended each of the following programmes, subject to the satisfactory outcome of actions identified in the report.
BSc (Hons) Neuroscience and another subject - New
MRes Biomedical Sciences (Cancer Studies) - New
MRes Biomedical Sciences (Cardiovascular Studies) - New
MRes Ecology & Environmental Biology - New
MRes Ecology & Environmental Biology (Biodiversity) - New
MRes Ecology & Environmental Biology (Evolution & Systematics) - New
MRes Ecology & Environmental Biology (Marine & Freshwater) - New
MSc Medical Physics - New
MSc (MedSci) Diabetes - New
MSc Bioinformatics, Polyomics & Systems Biology - New
The PAG could not recommend approval of the following programmes at present:
MRes Biomedical Sciences (Veterinary Science) - New
MSc Clinical Sciences with specialisation - New
MSc Sport & Exercise Science & Medicine - New
MSc Translational Medical Sciences with specialisation - Change
MSc (MedSci) Advanced Practice in Health Care with specialisms - Change
ASC noted that the programmes which had not been approved had been mainly due to the ambiguity of the aims of objectives in the programme specifications. Intended Learning Outcomes were also unclear for those areas identified "with specialisms". ASC agreed that, programmes with specialisms required their own programme specification identifying their particular aims and ILOs, rather than combine all information for all specialism into a single generic document. Such documents were found to be long and difficult to follow in terms of identifying the particular information for each specialism.
Professor Evans sought clarification whether the complete BVMS new curriculum had yet to receive PAG approval and the Clerk agreed to investigate this.
Action: Clerk to ASC
[Clerk's note: BVMS Year 5 had been approved by ASC at its May 2012 meeting. There had also been a further change this session to the final year of the programme which had been given College approval and did not require further consideration by the PAG. Year 1-4 was submitted to ASC on 16 November 2012 and had been approved subject to revision and resubmission of the Programme Specification in line with the observations noted. This was completed in March 2013 and the proposal subsequently approved in PIP.
ASC/2012/52.1.2 College of Science & Engineering
Professor Evans, Convener of the PAG for the College of Science and Engineering, advised ASC that the PAG had been unable to make any recommendations due to the significant number of errors contained in the documentation. It had also been unclear from the programme specifications the difference between the BEng and MEng programmes and no indication was given in relation to what constituted part-time study. The paperwork was consequently returned to the College for amendment.
ASC noted that reference had also been made to the ability to communicate effectively in more than one language, but it had been unclear as to how this would be supported and whether or not, generically, language credit should be incorporated into associated programmes, if students were expected to have the necessary language skills.
ASC/2012/52.1.3 College of Social Sciences
ASC received and noted the PAG report which had considered proposals from the College of Social Sciences on 19 March 2013. It was noted that the PAG had recommended each of the following programmes subject to the satisfactory outcome of actions identified in the report.
MSc Asset Pricing & Investment - New
MSc Finance & Management - New
MSc Investment Fund Management - New
MSc Sustainability, Professional Practice & Leadership - New
PgCert Leading Professional Learning - New
MEd Professional Learning & Enquiry - Change
MRes Public Policy Research - Change
MRes Urban Research - Change
MSc Housing Studies - Change
PgDip Housing Studies - Change
The PAG could not recommend approval of the following programmes at present:
MSc Global Cities - New
MSc International Planning Studies - New
MSc International Real Estate - New
MSc Public & Urban Policy - New
PgCert Estonian Language - New
PgCert Hungarian Language - New
PgCert Latvian Language - New
MSc City Planning & Real Estate Development - Change
MSc City Planning & Regeneration - Change
MSc City & Regional Planning - Change
MSc Real Estate & Regeneration - Change
MSc Real Estate - Change
PgCert Real Estate - Change
PgCert Spatial Planning - Change
Professor Edwards, a member of the PAG, advised that a number of the programmes that could not be approved were PG Certificates in a specified language where the standard of language skills expected to be achieved was basic and the PAG considered that this was not accurately reflected in the name of the programme. ASC acknowledged that the level of credit undertaken within the PgCert was lower than standard taught postgraduate programmes due to historical reasons but agreed to approach College Deans of Graduate Studies to ascertain what PgCerts currently exist and whether they should be re-titled Graduate Certificates.
Action: Senate Office
Student representation on PAGs had been introduced in the previous session and it was noted that attendance by Student Representatives had been minimal at the recent PAG meetings. After some consideration, ASC agreed to continue with student representation as the alternative perspective was useful to the programme approval process.
Ms Moyra Boland and Dr Beth Dickson, School of Education, attended the meeting to respond to any questions arising from the paper presented which provided a response to the points of clarification raised at the last meeting of ASC. Members considered each issue as follows:
i) Total Level 11 credits and impact in Year 4 - 90 credits at Level 11 in Year 4 was considered critical by the School of Education in relation to the vision of calibre of teacher, reflecting the Scottish Government's aspiration of a Master-level profession in initial teacher education. ASC sought clarification that students in Year 4 would be able to cope with Level 11 study. Ms Boland confirmed that appropriate support would be given. ASC was satisfied that the degree structure would provide adequate support to enable students to complete Level 11 credit in fourth year.
ii) Exit provision for students in Year 4 - Students who did not wish to enter the profession would study at Honours level. Exit provision for students who failed M-level credit in Year 4 would be awarded an Honours degree in Education without teaching qualification (Accreditation of the programme was dependent on GTC approval which required students entering the teaching profession to have passed all elements of the programme)
iii) Support for students undertaking the final stage of their Masters programme - the 120 credits at Level 11 taken in Year 5 could be taken over a period of 5 years after completion of the first four years. Learning would be taken on-line, supplemented by some weekend provision. Students would be supported on Moodle forums by tutors involved in the Early Phase of induction to teaching. Currently, the Masters in Professional Practice programme enables PGDE students to complete their remaining 90 M-level credits this way and has attracted an increasing number of students. The credits have been designed to be taken flexibly with students taking them part-time within the first three years after graduation.
iv) Consideration of the name of the final award - the title of the final award after Year 5 would be Master of Education with Teaching Qualification (MEduc) and this would be offered as a classified degree in line with other integrated Masters degrees offered at Glasgow. Students who did not wish to enter the teaching profession, would exit in Year 4 with a MA Honours in Education. Students with the Masters Diploma in Education would be able to progress to Year 5 to complete the Integrated Masters degree. This was considered crucial for the acceptance of the new programme within the University and within the profession. It was recognised that the configuration of credit being proposed was new and was a mix of undergraduate and postgraduate provision. However, it was argued that there were professional and policy drivers for doing so.
ASC accepted each of the arguments presented and approved the proposed new degree, in principle. The detailed programme proposal would be considered through the standard process for new programme proposals. It was agreed that EdPSC should be invited to consider approval of the new University award: Master of Education with Teaching Qualification (MEduc).
Professor John Marsh and Professor Scott Roy, School of Engineering, attended the meeting to speak to the paper outlining the proposed dual degree between the University of Glasgow (UoG) and the University of Electronic Science and Technology (UESTC). It was noted that the Joint Educational Programme had previously been approved, in principle, by EdPSC and Senate with the University of Glasgow degree programme, the BEng in Electronics and Electrical Engineering being offered. The Joint Programme required that the teaching of the technical courses would be shared 50:50 between the two institutions and students would consequently graduate with a double award with degrees from both institutions. The programme would comprise of core technical courses that correspond to the UoG BEng as delivered in Glasgow which would be delivered jointly by UoG and UESTC. Additional non-technical and basic training courses, as required by the Chinese Ministry of Education, would be delivered solely by UESTC and therefore the UoG programme specification applied only to the core technical courses, which made up approximately 75% of the complete programme.
Since EdPSC and Senate approval, there had been further developments following discussion between the University of Glasgow and UESTC and ASC was asked to consider the further details of the proposed academic programme. The following five issues were specifically drawn to ASC's attention:
1. The alternative mode of teaching at UESTC where University of Glasgow staff would fly to Chengdu for one to two weeks to provide block teaching
ASC was advised that most of the University of Glasgow academic staff teaching would be based in Glasgow and fly to UESTC to teach in blocks for 1 or 2 weeks. Other members of UoG academic staff may be resident in Chengdu and these academics and UESTC academic staff would deliver courses in a more traditional manner. The curriculum has been designed to accommodate both styles of delivery. The courses taught by visiting staff had been selected to be more suited to block delivery with tutorial support provided from UESTC teaching assistants employed on behalf of the University of Glasgow and directly supported by UoG academics. University of Glasgow lecturers would also be available on-line to support students. This teaching style was being used at MSc level with a similar arrangement taking place at the Queen Mary University London which has a similar dual degree arrangement with a Beijing University.
ASC sought reassurance that appropriate training and support would be provided for the UESTC teaching assistants. It was noted that this was still to be resolved.
2. A higher curriculum load than SCQF requirement
It was noted that to meet Chinese expectations, students at UESTC would be more heavily loaded that equivalent students at the University of Glasgow. This was due to the longer Chinese academic year and the additional non-technical and basic training courses Chinese students were required to take. ASC was advised that the definition of a credit was fundamentally different in China where 1 credit equalled 1 hour of teaching per week for one semester (20 weeks, including revision and examinations) compared to the 1 SCQF credit that equalled 10 learning hours. Consequently, UESTC and the School of Engineering had adopted a conversion factor of 1 Chinese credit to 4 SCQF credits and therefore approximately 135 credits per year would be taught for the core curriculum, higher than the current 120 credit SCQF requirement. However, it was argued that the additional credit allowed for a greater depth of creativity and balance within the degree which would be more attractive to students.
Professor Roy highlighted that the additional Chinese student teaching load of 180 credits was not unrealistic as the teaching year was longer and the majority of non technical courses were considered extra curricula in Scotland such as Physical Education. Additional time was also allocated for study and examinations.
3. A larger number of reassessment opportunities than normal be permitted to accommodate the UESTC requirement to pass all courses
Chinese students were required to pass all courses to be awarded a degree, while at Glasgow 20 credits per year could be at grade E in Engineering. However, Chinese students had the opportunity for unlimited reassessment. The School of Engineering therefore proposed that while students would be required to meet the same rules as in Glasgow for progression and graduation with the same limitations on reassessment to meet these, the limit for reassessment would not be applied to allow students to meet the additional (Chinese) requirement of achieving a grade D or better in all courses before they could graduate. It was also confirmed that calculations for Honours degree would be based on the first attempt.
It was noted that, in principle, students would receive a double degree, but if Chinese non-technical courses were failed, students could still be eligible for the Glasgow BEng degree.
4. The Joint Educational Programme has academic years which deviate significantly from 120 credits per year, with approximately a 120: 160: 160: 90 spread of credits over Years 1 to 4
The alternative academic years reflected the Chinese practice of distributing technical credits unevenly across the degree programme as Chinese students spent much of the final year preparing for graduate entrance examinations with the final semester containing only the individual project with no lecture courses. It was acknowledged that progression under this system was complex. ASC agreed that more specific requirements per year would be required to reflect progression through the levels.
5. UESTC courses in Years 3 and 4 to contribute toward the final degree assessment, which was a change from the Memorandum of Agreement
As the Memorandum of Agreement was based on UESTC course being taught in years 1 and 2 only, this would now have to be amended to reflect that the curriculum would include some UESTC Level 9 and 10 courses being delivered in Years 3 and 4 (a quarter of core technical credits) following detailed discussion with UESTC on the integration of the curriculum. Some UESTC credits would therefore contribute towards the final degree assessment. It was confirmed that the University's internal and external quality processes would be applied to all courses on the BEng curriculum with an appropriate diversity of External Examiners appointed.
Having considered each of the five broad issues in turn, ASC gave, in-principle agreement to the proposed dual degree, on condition that adequate GTA training and support was given and more specific progression rules were included.
Operation of Progress
Professor Bob Hill, Convener of the Academic Regulations Sub-Committee (ARSC), reported that members had discussed the operation of progress in different areas of the University and, having identified a variety of good practice, developed a checklist of items to be covered in correspondence with students. ASC approved the checklist as good practice which could be recommended across the University.
The question was raised as to whether there would be and revision of degree regulations to include reference to progress procedures. Professor Hill understood that Colleges had been reviewing progress procedure at College level which might make the inclusion of progression in specific regulations problematic. However it was agreed that ARSC could consider current references to progression in the Calendar regulations in order to review whether any further detail could be added.
Action: Clerk of ARSC
ASC/2012/56.1.1 College of MVLS - PGT Programmes
ASC received the report of the review of the College of MVLS PGT programmes held on 22 and 23 November 2012. ASC noted that no commendations had been made. A number of recommendations were discussed. It was noted that there was a contradiction between strategies in relation to growth of PGT activity and workload issues and teaching capacity and it had therefore been recommended that the College identified a clear vision of how postgraduate teaching should evolve, setting realistic recruitment targets. ASC also noted the concerns relating to MyCampus raised by both staff and students.
ASC considered the Review Panel's concerns regarding the number of programmes covered by the Review which was deemed too large and unmanageable with a number of programmes not adequately represented by both staff and students. The Review Panel therefore only had the College documentation to base its conclusions. ASC was asked to consider a more appropriate method of reviewing the Graduate School's provision. ASC acknowledged that this was an issue specific to the College of MVLS where a range of taught postgraduate provision was delivered across the Research Institutes, rather than in the standard School structure in other Colleges. It was agreed that the most appropriate means of reviewing this provision should be reconsidered after the College had undertaken the review of its PGT strategy as specified in recommendation 1 as this may affect the structure of postgraduate taught provision which in turn would inform the deliberations on finding the most suitable review process.
The student representative also commented that the volume of documentation and the organisation of material on sharepoint had been problematic for this review, again indicating that coverage of such a wide scope of revision had presented challenges for the review panel.
ASC approved the report and its 10 recommendations.
ASC/2012/56.1.2 School of Modern Languages & Cultures
ASC received the report of the review of the School of Modern Languages and Cultures held on 18 and 19 February 2013. ASC was pleased to note that 10 commendations were made and only 7 recommendations to further improvement. ASC noted that the School had successfully harmonised approaches following restructuring which had facilitated synergies and sharing of best practice. The School had greatly enhanced its provision and effectiveness and ASC congratulated the Head of School for this achievement.
ASC approved the report and its 7 recommendations.
ASC/2012/56.1.3 School of Veterinary Medicine
ASC received the report of the review of the School of Veterinary Medicine (undergraduate provision) held on 4 and 5 December 2012. ASC considered the report to have been fair and thorough. ASC noted the 7 commendations, including the evident commitment of staff and high achieving students. Recommendation 1 reflected a similar issue as identified in the Review of the School of Life Sciences (see ASC/2012/56.2) with BSc (Hons) Veterinary Biosciences students completing a work placement year in Year 4 and following completion of a standard Level 10 honours year in their fifth and final year, graduating with an MSci. The award of a Masters level degree relied on the placement year satisfying the requirements of SCQF Level 11 and the Review Panel had expressed concern that this was not the case and had therefore recommended that, as a matter of urgency, the School revised the content of the final year of the MSci to ensure that QAA requirements were satisfied. ASC agreed that in taking forward this recommendation, the School should refer to the action taken by the School of Life Sciences in reviewing the structure of their MSci degree with work placement.
Recommendation 4 highlighted that the Level 4 ILOs required further work. Recommendation 3 highlighted the need for careful consideration of phasing in too many curriculum changes at one time and in particular the impact of these at Level 3. Recommendations 6 and 7 related to consistency of feedback to students on their progress throughout the programme and to give feedback to students who performed well and how to recognise feedback and make best use of it. Recommendation 11 sought a future vision for the Small Animal Hospital that was shared and understood by all staff in the School as there were currently two conflicting opinions on the role of the hospital. ASC further noted requests for accommodation upgrades and better transport links between the Garscube and Gilmorehill campuses.
ASC approved the report and its 13 recommendations.
Dr Iain Johnstone attended the meeting to speak to the paper which provided a response to ASC's request from the previous meeting for further detail on the rationale to the revision of the MSci structure, whereby SCQF Level 11 was predominantly attained by the work placement in Year 4 and by the introduction of a new 10-credit Level 11 course running across the two semesters in Year 5.
ASC was provided with some further background information on the delivery of Life Sciences degrees with MSci taught in parallel with BSc programmes and was advised that there was not a single degree programme for MSci students. In addition, student numbers were very small across the various MSci programmes with only up to 4 students taking any one MSci programme. He advised that the work placement in Year 4 was challenging and from experience of teaching the MRes in Medical Science and from acting as External Examiner at Nottingham University, he was confident that the level of attainment was the same, if not higher, although Life Sciences was aware that the structure did not fit the University's regulatory configuration. The placement year was research based and skills were developed accordingly. The topics chosen in Year 5, although Level 10, were directly relevant to the research undertaken in the previous year and due to the limited number of students, it was considered unfeasible to restructure the whole programme and raise all of the final year teaching to Level 11, although it was agreed that it would be feasible to increase the research component of the courses to Level 11.
During discussion, ASC proposed increasing the weighting of the Level 11 component for the Honours classification of the MSci by increasing the weighting of the placement year to 50:50 weighting for Years 4 and 5, rather than having a heavier (80%) weighting of final year. It was also suggested that steps could be taken to increasing the amount of Level 11 provision in the final year by raising the Year 5 project and assessed tutorial course to level 11.
ASC agreed that subject to the further amendments to ensure that the Level 11 taken in fourth year was sufficiently weighted, and Level 11 components in final year were increased as discussed, the proposed structure could be developed for the MSci degrees in the School of Life Sciences.
The Convener advised that progress had been made in relation to the two outstanding issues arising from the 12-month progress report for Music: confirmation of responsibility for equipment maintenance, and Music was in discussion with Estates & Buildings regarding the use of the foyer of the Concert Hall.
Mrs Catherine Omand, Senate Office, spoke to the paper on the Review of Timescale for Update Reports. ASC noted that Senate Office had considered shortening the timescale for receipt of update reports to conclude on actions identified as soon as possible after the review event. However, Senate Office proposed that a 6-month timescale for all recommendations could be counterproductive as not all recommendations could be met within this shortened timescale and this could therefore lead to multiple update progress reports being presented to ASC. Also there were administrative and operational matters to be considered as bringing forward the timescale clashed with the next round of reviews. ASC agreed to retain the 12-month timescale but where possible, a 6-month timescale should be implemented for recommendations identified by the PSR group as appropriate for action within that shorter period or where it was considered that it would be helpful to have a progress report in 6 months. When this occurred, the School/Subject would be advised accordingly, prior to ASC approval, to ensure adequate time was allocated for action on the recommendation. Senate Office would amend the related PSR guidance documentation accordingly.
Action: Senate Office
ASC received the report of the above meeting and approved the membership of the Joint Liaison Committee for 2013-14. ASC noted and approved the change to the timetable for the Periodic Subject Review of Applied Science and re-validation. ASC also approved the 11 members of staff recommended as recognised teachers of the University.
ASC noted that the Programme and Course Approval Working Group had met and considered proposed changes to the PIP Course Specification template in order to improve data input and allow for more consistency with Key Information Set (KIS) headings. Clearer definitions for each type of assessment and teaching/learning method would be made available to proposers. ASC further noted that the Working Group had considered a number of changes to the Course Specification and Programme Specification documents, in order to improve clarity for the proposer, reviewer and read. It was anticipated that these changes would be made over the summer months.
There were no items of reserved business.
The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 24 May 2013 at 9.30am in the Melville Room.
Created by: Ms Helen Butcher