The minutes of the previous meeting of 4 October 2013 were approved as a correct record. 

There were no items of business from the Convener. 

College Annual Monitoring Summaries (CAMS) had been received for undergraduate courses from three of the four Colleges:

• College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences
• College of Science & Engineering
• College of Social Sciences

Submission of the CAMS from the College of Arts had not been possible due to a combination of factors including slow submission of some School Summaries. Some of the CAMS submitted had also been delayed due to the slowness in the submission of some of the School Summaries.

Each of the reports was considered, and the Committee also identified a number of generic issues arising from the three reports available. Once all four reports had been received a summary of key issues would be prepared by the Senate Office.

Concerns about staff engagement with the process were raised given the delays in production of complete School Summary reports and it was agreed that College Quality Officers should look further into the reasons behind this. Staff turnover was identified as one factor - this was noted in the Science and Engineering report along with the observation that the work of the School Quality Officer was not included in the University's workload model which was considered to be a contributing factor to the turnover in this role. The same College also raised concern over the report templates which were considered to be work intensive - it was noted that in one case a School Summary was over 100 pages long.

Accommodation for learning and teaching was the key area where constraints and challenges were consistently raised in all reports, and this was ongoing from previous years. ASC understood that action had been taken at University level and that there was an awareness of the severe accommodation constraints across the University; however it was agreed that there were significant issues of concern which required further attention at senior level and therefore EdPSC was invited to consider these. The following themes were drawn from the reports:

1. The process of room allocation - ensuring adequacy of rooms for specific purpose (function, size and accessibility);
2. The quality of accommodation - ensuring all aspects of accommodation, including teaching tools, are in good working order, related to this was the need to ensure academic staff are fully involved in plans to refurbish teaching accommodation;
3. Spread of accommodation timetabled consecutively - avoiding long distances between accommodation to ensure that students and staff have sufficient time to move from one location to another.

In relation to point 3) above, members drew attention to the need to build cohesion in early year student cohorts as identified by the Retention Working Group. It was agreed that use of a single building, or a recognised set of buildings, facilitated this process greatly, but it was understood that in some cases requests for timetabling to be located in a single area had been denied. While the Committee agreed that zoning teaching accommodation for student groups was desirable, it was accepted that this could not be achieved for all subject areas under current arrangements/resources and therefore prioritising location for some areas could have a knock-on effect of exacerbating difficulties with spread of accommodation in other subjects.

The following issues were noted from the individual College reports:

• Recurring issues from previous years included difficulties with MyCampus and its fitness for purpose; requests for additional local administrative support for MyCampus record maintenance (partly to relieve academic staff from administrative work); room bookings and accommodation concerns.
• Concerns about attendance arising from the availability of resources on Moodle and the potential impact of recording lectures.
• Board of Examiner arrangements - a large Board for the whole of the School of Engineering had been trialled and it was suggested that principles surrounding the operation of larger Boards may be an issue for ARSC to consider in the future.
• Arrangements for study abroad particularly as increasing numbers of students were taking a period of study abroad as part of their programme.
• The lack of clarity over the structure of academic arrangements within the Centre for Open Studies following its transfer to University Services in 2012.

In reviewing the CAMS, the Senate Office will identify areas where action needs to be taken forward.

Action: Senate Office

Professor Hill introduced the report which outlined a number of proposals from ARSC.

Guidance on Discretion

The Sub-committee had been tasked with reviewing the recently introduced Guidance on Discretion with a view to clarifying and expanding a number of areas.

The question of preponderance and its definition within the context of applying discretion was discussed in some detail. ARSC had proposed that a single definition should be used for preponderance where 'more than 50% of grades' fell in the higher category. It was recognised that this would be problematic in some programme structures which used large courses e.g. PGT programmes in MVLS where the taught component comprised two 60 credit courses. ARSC therefore proposed that an exception should be applied where there were only two courses and preponderance applied by achieving at least 50% of the higher grade. ASC found this problematic as consistency in the application of preponderance could not be achieved, there was still lack of clarity, and in some cases members favoured the approach of allowing 50% or greater to allow uplift as a universal approach. It was also suggested that the term 'preponderance' could be removed from the guidance as it was acknowledged that the application of 50% or more was not true preponderance.

ARSC had also considered the significance of grade profiles and course weightings in the consideration of discretion for cases where preponderance had been established. The Sub-Committee had proposed that Boards of Examiners should have discretion to refer to grade profile in whatever way they considered to be justified for their programme; and to decide on whether to apply established year weightings used for the calculation of the GPA to consideration of the preponderance of the grade profile. In both cases, a clear note on the approach taken would need to be included in the minutes of the Board meeting and then applied consistently to all cases. Again, concerns were raised by ASC as it was suggested that anomalies could arise with some courses being prioritised over others in the consideration of discretion. The question of which of GPA and preponderance was the higher indicator for decisions on discretion was also raised, and there was a general feeling that decisions would be appealed by students seeking justification of why preponderance had not been applied. For grade profile it was pointed out that this could be considered either in terms of the student's own profile where, for example, one low grade affected their GPA; or by prioritising performance in certain courses over others. It was agreed that the latter should be dealt with through credit rating rather than discretion.

ASC agreed that further clarification was required to make the guidance more useful, and ARSC was therefore asked to consider expanding the guidance on discretion taking into account ASC's comments on preponderance, grade profile and year weighting. It was suggested that more detail on the nature of the exercise should be provided, identifying elements in grade profiles that can and cannot be taken into account and any priority amongst the various factors which can be taken into account in exercising discretion.

Action: ARSC

Submission of PGT dissertation where students not eligible to progress

ARSC had also considered the question of whether PGT students should be eligible to submit their dissertation or other independent project for marking even when they had not qualified for the award of Masters on the basis of performance in taught courses. It was noted that this could arise where students began their dissertation before the assessment of taught courses had been completed, and that in cases where students had resit opportunities their final GPA for taught courses would not be confirmed until very close to the dissertation submission date. ASC concurred with the Sub-committee's view that the University would be acting in bad faith if it did not acknowledge the work done on the dissertation/independent project where the final taught assessment results were not available until very close to the dissertation submission date. It was also noted that students registering for a taught masters pay the full fee for the programme and a failure to progress to the dissertation does not result in any fee refund.

ASC agreed to the following amendment:

On a taught Masters programme, at the point that a final GPA of less than 12.0 is confirmed no award of Masters would be made, but:

• If the dissertation has been submitted then it should be marked in accordance with the full assessment schedule (including any presentation components) and a mark recorded on the transcript.
• If the dissertation is almost finished, with NO FURTHER SUPERVISORY INPUT REQUIRED, the student should be permitted to complete the dissertation, submit and have the mark recorded on the transcript.
• If there is still significant work to be done, with supervisory input required (e.g. a draft yet to be commented on) then the project should be brought to a halt.
• Finally, if the dissertation is marked but the grade is below the threshold that normally permits a reassessment, a resubmission will be permitted ONLY if the University confirms that no supervisory input is required for the resubmission.

EdPSC was invited to endorse the above amendment, and on this confirmation the provision would be added to the generic PGT regulations in time for the 2014-15 edition of the Calendar.

Action: Senate Office

Late submission penalties for part-time students

ARSC had also considered the question of whether the standard penalties for late submission of coursework should operate differently for part-time students to reflect that their 'working days' would be different to those with a full-time registration. ARSC had found this problematic for a number of reasons, including the wide range of study patterns applying across different programmes, courses being studied simultaneously on a part-time and full-time basis, and judgments being made in relation to responsibilities carried by students outwith their studies. It was also noted that the students completed their programme of study over a longer period than full-time students but in relation to any particular course they were treated the same as the full-time students taking that course: they studied together and assessment was completed at the same time for all students. In the case of the Honours dissertation, full-time and part-time students were all given the same period of time to complete the work.

ASC confirmed the view of ARSC that the rules on penalties for the late submission of coursework should be applied to part-time students in the same way as to full-time students.

Ms Muir from the Academic Collaborations Office introduced the above paper which reported on the mapping exercise which had taken place to ensure that University procedures for collaborative provision were aligned to the QAA Quality Code Chapter (B10) which covered collaborative arrangements. Members were advised that Chapter B10 applied to all forms of learning opportunity which involved participation from more than one organisation including joint and double degrees, joint supervision of doctoral degrees and research, student exchange, and placements or work-based learning away from the home institution. Members were advised that this particular mapping had focused on collaborative arrangements for degrees and research, rather than student exchange and placements. Separate papers would be provided from the Student Mobility Team for student exchanges and from the Careers Service covering placements and work-based learning.

Arrangements for collaborative provision were found to have been in broad alignment with the 19 indicators of good practice detailed in the Quality Code, although some areas were identified where action would enhance existing University policy and or procedures. ASC approved the proposed changes as outlined in Section 3 of the paper. ASC also sought reassurance that there would be consistency with these actions and any proposed for the other areas (student exchanges and placements) to ensure that there was cohesion in the University's overall approach to all types of activity involving partnership.

Ms Muir also introduced the above report which outlined the amendments that had been made to the University's Code of Practice for Validated Provision for the current session. Changes had been made in response to the introduction of new and enhanced processes for the development, approval and monitoring of collaborative provision in general; and the publication of chapter B10 of the QAA Quality Code: Managing higher education provision with others. The Code of Practice for Validated Provision related specifically to the University's arrangements with its four validated institutions: The Glasgow School of Art; Christies Education, London; The Edinburgh Theological Seminary (previously the Free Church College of Scotland) and Scotland's Rural College (previously the Scottish Agricultural College). The proposal for amendment of the current Partnership Review Procedure to be applied to Validated Partners was withdrawn from the paper as further development was required before it would be re-submitted to ASC in February 2014. 

ASC received and noted the Annual report from the Joint Academic Management Board for the University of Glasgow and Glasgow International College for session 2012-13. ASC also approved the proposed remit and membership for JAMB for session 2013-14. 

ASC received and noted the report of the above Joint Liaison Committee. Approval was given to the proposed remit and membership of the Joint Liaison Committee for 2013-14, and for the GSA staff listed in appendix 2 of the paper as Teachers of the University. 

ASC considered the Statement of Intent for the development of a new Masters programme to be jointly taught between The Glasgow School of Art and the University's School of Culture and Creative Arts. ASC gave approval for the proposal to go forward for validation as an award of the University.

In considering the paper ASC agreed that more clarity should be given on the role of the University in the assessment procedures as this was not detailed in appendix 1 of the paper which referred to the application of the GSA Code of Assessment. In noting the proposed teaching loads detailed in appendix 1, it was suggested that these may require review if the programme was successful in attracting good numbers and that the balance of input from each institution may also require review if developments such as the transition to a joint award took place.

ASC noted the report which provided a summary of the accreditation activity which had taken place during session 2012-13. In total 10 bodies had undertaken accreditation reviews leading to the accreditation of a wide number of degrees across a range of five subject areas.  

ASC noted the change of institutional title for the Free Church College which would become the Edinburgh Theological Seminary during 2014 prior to the beginning of session 2014-15. It was also noted that there would not be any major changes to staffing or the programmes offered by the college as a result of the change of title. 

The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 14 February 2014 at 9.30am in the Melville Room.