University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Minute of Meeting held on Friday 14 February 2014 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room
Dr Kenny Brophy, Professor John Briggs, Mr Oli Coombs, Professor Tom Guthrie (Convener), Professor Bob Hill, Professor Alice Jenkins, Ms Helen McAvoy (vice Mr George Tait), Dr Martin Macauley, Ms Dawn McKenzie, Dr Anna Morgan-Thomas, Dr Kevin O'Dell, Dr Allison Orr, Ms Anne Phelan, Dr Helen Stoddart, Dr Marco Vezza.
In Attendance:Ms Helen Butcher, Professor Thomas Munck (for item ASC/2013/41.1), Ms Elizabeth Gray (for item ASC/2013/41.2), Dr David Bain (for items ASC/2013/43.2 and ASC/2013/43.3), Ms Wendy Muir (for items ASC/2013/47 and ASC/2013/48), Mr Robin Gordon & Mrs Colette McGowan (for item ASC/2013/49).
Apologies:Dr Jack Aitken, Professor Frank Coton, Professor Christine Edwards, Mr Matthew Hastings, Dr Penny Morris, Dr Anna O'Neill, Dr Karen Renaud.
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 15 November 2013 were approved as a correct record.
It was noted RPSC had given in-principle approval to the above proposal at its last meeting held in December 2013.
ASC noted that the proposal for the new MSc Sport and Exercise Science & Medicine (Distance Learning) had been suspended by the programme proposers as additional changes were planned to the programme structure which would be resubmitted for approval at a later date.
It was noted that the submission of the proposal for amendment of the current Partnership Review Procedure to be applied to Validated Partners had been deferred as the process for approval of this Procedure was currently under review.
Professor Guthrie reported that the pilot for submitting good cause claims on MyCampus had been deferred. After evaluating the required development time to amend MyCampus, SLSD had confirmed that changes would not be ready in time for the April/May assessment diet. The pilot would therefore be deferred to the December 2014 assessment diet and would be reported on early in Semester 2 of 2014-15.
ASC noted that requests for participation in the pilot had been received from a number of areas in the College of Social Sciences and the following programmes had been selected for participation:
- BAcc
- LLB
- Diploma in Legal Practice
- PGT Programmes - School of Education
A report setting out proposals from Professor Munck in the College of Arts was withdrawn from the meeting as it had been agreed that these would be considered by the Programme and Course Approval Working Group (PCAWG) in the first instance and then reported on to ASC.
Action: Clerk
Ms Gray, Head of Strategic Marketing in the Recruitment & International Office (RIO), attended the meeting to speak to the report on the review of the PGT Market Assessment Process. It was noted that RIO had introduced a market assessment process in 2010 in response to the University's strategic target to double international PGT numbers by 2014-15. The report detailed the review of this process which had been undertaken by RIO in consultation with various areas of the University.
The report included details of the Traffic Light System (TLS) used by RIO to rate programmes (existing or proposed) in terms of their international marketability. Members were reminded that this process was to advise on market information and to flag cases where no international market had been identified, but was not a mechanism for rejecting proposals from the approval system. The report contained an analysis of the accuracy of the TLS comparing ratings with subsequent recruitment. This showed a 20% rate of major errors (programmes assigned either a red or green rating which was incorrect) across the University, although it was noted that this assessment had been made against the original market assessment and TL process which had subsequently been revised. ASC's attention was drawn to the recommended changes to the market assessment process which had arisen from the review: College Recruitment Conversion Marketing Officers were now being invited to review proposals at an early stage to ensure strategic fit with the College; and additional members were being copied into the final assessment (Deans of Learning & Teaching and Graduate Studies, RCMOs and College Business Development Managers). It was also noted that there had previously been some debate within the University about retaining the TLS or amending it to two gradings (red and green) but EdPSC had confirmed that the system should be retained with the amber grading as this reflected the reality of market assessments.
Ms Gray also highlighted the increasing volume of assessments and the peak of activity between October and January. She observed that a more even distribution of activity would be desirable, and that assessments prior to October fitted better with the recruitment cycle.
Members of ASC reported that the assessment process was useful and that the reports from RIO were helpful and informative providing a rich set of data on the potential marketability for proposals in the international context. However concern was expressed at the effect of the TLS in reducing the assessment to a single rating as well as the lack of accuracy in some of the ratings. There was particular concern that red ratings could potentially quash innovation. It was also suggested that the terminology associated with the traffic light ratings was off-putting, particularly given the negative indicator of a red light. It was suggested that these might be replaced by High, Medium or Low Market Potential.
The Committee welcomed the clarification that the TLS was advisory and not part of the decision-making in the programme approval process. It was agreed that a clear statement on this should be included in the programme approval guidance. It was further noted by the Dean of Learning & Teaching in the College of Arts that this issue was part of a wider debate within her College and that she would welcome the opportunity for further discussion with RIO out of committee.
Action: AJ
A number of points were made in relation to the process of providing information to RIO for the market assessment. Members felt that there was some overlap between the information required for the PIP proposal (particularly the rationale for the proposal) and that being sought by RIO. While it was accepted that the market assessment exercise was often undertaken before information was submitted to PIP, it was suggested that flexibility by RIO in accepting any existing PIP information as an alternative to the information requested on the RIO form would be welcome, though it was noted that some change might be needed to the instructions on the Programme Support document to ensure that all the information required by RIO was captured. Members also highlighted the need for accurate communication, and dialogue, with the subject areas to ensure that RIO had a full understanding of the nature of the programme being submitted for assessment, especially in relation to any unique selling propositions offered by the programme. The need to encourage discussion once a rating had been assigned to a programme was also highlighted to allow appropriate action to be taken to improve the international marketability of programmes if necessary.
It was suggested that the market assessment process could be revised further in light of discussion with particular attention being given to:
- Ensuring that programme information submitted for market assessment provided sufficient detail about the precise nature of the programme;
- Retaining a three-tier grading system but revising the nomenclature of grading to remove the misleading red light rating and demonstrate more clearly that the rating was an assessment of market potential;
- Introducing further dialogue in the process post grading to mitigate against the risks of misunderstandings about the nature of proposals or further action to improve marketability.
Ms Gray was therefore invited to submit a revised market assessment process to ASC in April for review prior to recommendation to EdPSC in May.
Action: EG
ASC considered a proposal to amend the current process for withdrawing programmes. This was in response to programmes being withdrawn late in the session and associated concerns of reputational damage caused when applicants were offered places on programmes which were subsequently withdrawn.
ASC approved the proposal that a deadline should be set annually for the approval of programme withdrawals, after which proposals could only be considered in special cases where provision of a programme had become problematic due to unforeseen or unexpected circumstances. Approval for withdrawal of programmes would therefore be required as follows:
By 31 January for programmes recruiting for Semester 1 (September) entry
By 31 August for programmes with Semester 2 (January) entry
Proposals would be required to be submitted to the Senate Office at least 7 days before these deadlines.
After these deadlines proposers would be required to submit a special case to the Convener of ASC and the Clerk of Senate seeking late approval due to exceptional circumstances.
Members also noted the PIP checklist on the Withdraw/Suspend process for programmes. There was concern that this involved a large number of steps with some actions being required both within and outwith the PIP system. The need for consultation with external academics in cases of programme suspension was also questioned. ASC agreed that the checklist should be referred to PCAWG to review and consider streamlining of the process.
Action: Clerk
ASC received a report of a meeting held to discuss the update of data on learning and teaching, and assessment methods in course specifications. This had arisen after changes had been made to the structure of course specifications for 2013-14 to facilitate the collection of this data for the University's Key Information Sets published on the Unistats website. Originally it had been planned that Schools would update this information by April 2014 in order for Planning & Business Intelligence to use the data for KIS preparation. However PBI had since advised that this exercise could be undertaken using data from last year and therefore the April deadline was no longer required. The group agreed that although this deadline had been removed, the exercise should still be completed as the new structure of the course specifications should be retained and therefore the blank fields for Learning & Teaching Methods and Assessment Methods required completion. It was agreed that each College should decide on how to do this from two options: 1) by combining the update exercise with the annual exercise of checking and updating course specifications for the next session's publication of the online catalogue (with a July deadline); or 2) by collecting this specific data separately by issuing spreadsheets to Schools to complete which would then provide data for IT Services to upload into PIP.
ASC's attention was drawn to two issues which had been highlighted during the consideration of the above exercise.
Firstly, there was concern that the annual review and update of course information for the online course catalogue was not being completed in some areas resulting in the publication of out of date information. ASC concurred that this was a significant problem which required attention. The question of duplicating data between PIP and MyCampus was raised but it was confirmed that course data in PIP was transferred to MyCampus and although further items were input directly to MyCampus there was no duplication of data input for Schools. At programme level it was acknowledged that having the two documents - programme specifications and Plans caused some issues in that Plan data tended to get updated in MyCampus whereas programme specifications were neglected after they had been generated for the approval process in PIP. Members agreed that it was necessary to incentivise the updating of both programme and course specifications although this was currently problematic as there were no penalties or tangible disadvantages if data was not updated. ASC agreed that Colleges should be alerted to the concerns about the lack of updated data and asked to ensure that each School identified an appropriate individual to take responsibility for the updating process.
Secondly, it was suggested that there should be a review of the data in the course specifications in order to categorise it into different types for approval purposes - identifying corrections, updates, minor changes and major changes, with further consideration of the level of approval required for each type of change and whether any of these could be approved independently at School level. Noting that a review of this nature had not taken place since re-structuring, ASC agreed that this exercise should be taken forward by PCAWG.
Action: Clerk of PCAWG
ASC confirmed approval of the following new programmes which had been proposed by the College of Arts, and which had now met the conditions set out by the PAG:
MLitt Comparative Literature
MSc Film-Making and Media Arts
These new awards would be introduced in 2014-15.
ASC/2013/41.6.1 College of Social Sciences and College of Science & Engineering
ASC gave approval to the following proposals for new programmes which had been scrutinised by a Fast-track PAG. All of these programmes would be dual awards with the University of Nankai, China:
College of Science and Engineering
International Masters in Environmental Management
College of Social Sciences
International Masters in Urban and Regional Planning
International Masters in International Relations
These new awards would be introduced in 2014-15.
ASC was asked to review the question of when single or multiple programme specifications were appropriate for similar awards and to consider whether current guidance required revision.
Members agreed that clear and coherent guidance was required to articulate when a single specification would be acceptable. It was suggested that avoiding multiple documents was beneficial in reducing the load on subsequent updating requirements for these documents, although it was acknowledged that complex documents covering different sets of ILOs for different programme variants should be avoided.
It was agreed that the Guidance should be re-drafted and presented to the next meeting for consideration. This should advise that single specifications could be used when there groups of programmes with only minor differences between specialisms (e.g. involving only one or two different courses) but multiple specifications should be generated where each specialism required its unique set of ILOs.
Action: Clerk
ASC received a summary from the Senate Office identifying the key issues which had been raised in the College Annual Monitoring Summaries (CAMS) for 2012-13. Undergraduate CAMS had now been received for all four colleges, and presented to ASC. Postgraduate CAMS were also submitted to the current meeting from all Colleges except for MVLS as this report had not yet been submitted by the College Quality Officer.
As had been noted previously by ASC, accommodation for learning and teaching had been the area where constraints and challenges were consistently raised in all reports and this was a continuing theme from previous years. The issues discussed at previous meetings of ASC had been referred to EdPSC, and ASC was advised that as a result, the following points would be flagged to David Newall, Secretary of Court, and Steve Sutton, Estates & Buildings.
a) The process of room allocation - ensuring adequacy of rooms for specific purpose (function, size and accessibility);
b) 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;
c) 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;
d) Accommodation constraints which, during the current academic session, have resulted in the use of Saturdays for in-course assessments at both levels 1 and 2 (Adam Smith Business School).
Members agreed that feedback on the responses to these matters should be provided to ASC. It was also agreed further information on progress with actions responding to two issues arising from the 2011-12 CAMS from the College of Science and Engineering should also be sought. This related to staff workloads and induction arrangements for the January intake.
Action: Senate Office
In terms of the PG CAMS, ASC noted the following themes which had been identified and agreed that these should also be drawn to the attention of EdPSC. In addition to similar issues to those raised in the UG CAMS regarding accommodation constraints and room allocations, the following issues were highlighted for EdPSC to consider:
a) The new room booking system requires commitment to teaching spaces far in advance of information about student numbers and teaching activities at required stages of the curriculum;
b) The Adam Smith Business School noted that many systems seemed to have a UG focus and didn't recognise sufficiently special circumstances applying to PGT students. Specifically, issues were identified with; system of student support, session dates, PIP proposals and CMIS timetabling;
c) The impact of increasing numbers of overseas students on the learning experience and on student services.
The summary paper also identified issues which had been identified as requiring the attention of the University and these were being forwarded to the appropriate offices with responses and updates to be reported back to ASC in the future.
Noting that various issues had been identified in relation to MyCampus, Dr Macauley reported that difficulties were more prevalent the areas where academic staff were required to operate MyCampus as they had less opportunity to gain familiarity with the system. Ms McKenzie from SLSD agreed that MyCampus operated more smoothly where administrative support was in place to work on the system regularly, and also reported that steps were being taken to assist staff (in all areas) in understanding the system. She referred to the Best Practice meetings which SLSD had set up to allow direct contact with staff using MyCampus to identify areas of difficulty and offer guidance. It was noted that a meeting had taken place with staff in the College of Science and Engineering in December which had been useful.
Finally, ASC noted from the summary that the issue of staff engagement with the annual monitoring process remained a concern and that there had again been slowness in the submission of some of the CAMS. It was suggested that feedback to staff undertaking the annual monitoring was crucial in order to improve engagement and demonstrate that the process led to improvements. While action had been taken in recent years to improve the closing of feedback, it was suggested that this still required further attention.
Action: Senate Office
Each of the reports submitted to the current meeting was considered further as detailed below.
Dr Bain the College Quality Officer for Arts introduced both the UG and PG CAMS from his College. He reported that the monitoring process had been operating reasonably well although at PG level there had been less engagement in completing the documentation and suggestions for amendment of the form had been put forward. These would be considered by the Senate Office although it was recognised that they may be superceded by other amendments which were under consideration.
ASC was pleased to hear of the high satisfaction rate achieved by the College in the National Student Survey (NSS) (92.4%). Generally there had also been good feedback from students on assessment and feedback although helpfulness of comments and promptness in returns received lower rates of satisfaction. This was considered to reflect the increasing demands being placed on staff although measures were being taken to try and improve this aspect of feedback.
Other points of note included the positive work undertaken within the College to enhance Graduate Attributes. Some issues continuing from previous years were noted as having less intensity, including the need to provide feedback to staff on actions and improvements arising from annual monitoring, and the challenges of MyCampus. Accommodation issues particularly surrounding timetabling and room allocations were key issues as noted above, with three quarters of School monitoring reports referring to the allocation of inappropriate accommodation for teaching and learning.
No report available.
Dr Macaulay reported on the CAMS for his College. He highlighted as good practice recent work which had been undertaken in various Schools to analyse students' background knowledge during induction and early stages of study. This had been used to inform subsequent course development and allow changes to be made to match course content to the prior knowledge of students.
As highlighted elsewhere, the need to improve on feedback on annual monitoring was flagged, and in particular it was noted that staff had not received any feedback on previous concerns raised in relation to excessive staff workloads. This was also identified as a continuing issue, particularly with recent international developments in Singapore and China which were having a significant impact on staff workloads over the summer which was in turn threatening research time.
Professor Guthrie reported on the PG CAMS for the College of Social Sciences. Concerns about timetabling and room allocation had again been a key issue. Other factors such as concerns about the UG focus on student systems, and the impact of increasing numbers of international students had already been highlighted by ASC for raising with EdPSC.
Professor Hill presented the report from ARSC which presented two issues to ASC for consideration.
Guidelines on Exam Board Discretion
ARSC had given further consideration to aspects of the Guidelines on discretion as requested by ASC to facilitate the revision of these in time for the April/May assessment diet. After considering the points deliberated by ARSC, ASC agreed on the following points:
a. In considering the profile of grades one threshold should be used by all Exam Boards to determine whether students in the zone of discretion may then be moved up to the higher classification. It was agreed that this threshold should be '50% or more' of the grades in the higher category and therefore the term 'preponderance' should not be used.
b. Exam Boards would decide on how the grade profile would be considered in relation to the weighting of grades between different years of the degree. Therefore, in cases where the GPA was calculated on the basis of differential year weightings e.g. 40:60 for an Honours degree or 10:20:70 for a five year integrated masters award, the Exam Board would decide whether or not this weighting would also be applied in considering the grade profile to determine whether at least 50% of the course grades fell in the higher classification.
c. The Guidelines would provide options for Exam Boards to select, rather than giving a prescriptive series of steps which effectively determined the outcome for each student. They would not, therefore, prescribe that all candidates with grade profiles above the 50% threshold must be promoted. Instead, Exam Boards would have the option of choosing whether or not to consider further aspects of grade profile such as grades either higher or lower than the two classifications being considered.
ASC also confirmed that there should not be any change to the previously agreed principles in the Guidelines:
Criteria that should not be referred to by Boards:
- rank order*;
- elimination of outlying grades (this is different from the consideration of grade profile as described in c) above: when eliminating outlying grades, the highest and the lowest grades are discarded with no account taken of how far from the relevant threshold they are);
- applying additional weight to performance in any one assessment component, e.g. dissertation.
*ARSC had noted that some discontent remained at the fact that GPA was disregarded in the discretionary zone, and this was considered by some to lead to some anomalous cases, i.e. students promoted with lower GPAs than others who were not. Dr Macauley also noted that this was unpopular with many of the external examiners in the School of Engineering and he wished to register his dissent from the exclusion of rank order in the process of discretion. He considered it to be illogical to disregard rank order in considering discretionary cases when it was used outwith the discretionary zone.
Criteria that may be referred to after consideration of grade profile:
Unrounded mean
Borderline vivas
Exit velocity
In conclusion ASC agreed that the Guidelines should be re-drafted to take account of the above discussion, and should include examples of the options available to Exam Boards in considering grade profile. It was also agreed that in the interests of transparency, the criteria to be applied by each Exam Board should, if possible, be publicised in advance.
Action: Senate Office
Attendance Requirements/Academic Penalties for non-attendance
It was reported that some areas of the University had expressed a desire to find a way to encourage attendance on courses. It was accepted that stipulating a minimum attendance requirement for the award of credit could lead to very severe consequences if students failed to meet these and therefore had Credit Refused; and that this could be particularly severe in cases where all or some of the failure to attend was due to mitigating circumstances accepted as Good Cause because only 25% of the attendance requirement could be waived where Good Cause was established. As an alternative, ARSC had been asked to consider whether academic penalties (e.g. grade reduction of assessments) could be applied for poor attendance (without Good Cause).
ASC was broadly in agreement with the position of ARSC which did not support the use of academic penalties for poor attendance. As noted by ARSC, academic penalties were currently applied for the late submission of coursework, but there was clear justification for this as students benefited from having more time in which to complete the piece of work. In contrast, the rationale for an academic penalty arising from non-attendance was not clear. Once a student demonstrated a particular level of achievement of the ILOs in assessed work (with or without an appropriate level of attendance), it did not seem justifiable to impose a penalty on that assessment performance.
ASC therefore agreed that it was not appropriate to introduce academic penalties for non-attendance except where the absence could demonstrably be linked to ILOs associated with assessment (e.g. student presentation of work to a group).
Action: Senate Office
Dr Stoddart reported that while this position was accepted, there remained a strong resolve in the College of Arts to raise attendance levels and therefore further options would need to be sought. Members suggested that the matter should be considered holistically with due consideration being given to the learning benefit of attendance, and how assessment processes could be linked to these learning benefits.
The Committee received a paper outlining a proposed policy on the question of students repeating PGT programmes where the Good Cause regulations do not apply. Noting that there had been cases of students requesting to re-enrol for their PGT programme afresh after failing to achieve the required standard for the award first time, it was agreed clarity was required on when students could be permitted to repeat programmes.
It was noted that where adverse circumstances were considered to have affected assessment performance the regulations on Incomplete Assessment and Good Cause would be applied and these permitted the repeating of courses.
In cases where Good Cause did not apply it was agreed that repeating PGT programmes should only be possible when students' learning had been significantly compromised by circumstances outside their control i.e. where:
Students had experienced adverse circumstances (including chronic issues) outwith their control over all, or part of, the programme which impacted on their learning experience to an extent where they were unable to take assessments or to demonstrate the achievement of ILOs in assessments.
This policy information would require dissemination to all Schools and Colleges.
Action: Senate Office
This item is reserved to members of the committee and will be emailed out separately.
ASC/2013/46.1.1 Open Studies
ASC received the report of the review of Open Studies held on 11 and 12 March 2013. The breadth and flexibility of provision and the enthusiasm of staff and students were among the 8 commendations made by the Review Panel. ASC noted that the unit had undergone four reviews over the last 13 years which had presented various challenges and impacted on staff loads and morale. In reviewing the 17 recommendations presented in the report it was noted that some of these were closely related, and that four of the recommendations related to issues of accommodation which was a key area for improvement both in terms of learning spaces and staff accommodation. The peripheral location of the Centre had also been highlighted in the report with a recommendation to the University Court to consider a more central re-location of the Centre as part of the University's current campus re-development plans.
ASC approved the report and its 17 recommendations for onward transmission to those identified for action.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2013/46.2.1 Medicine - U/G
As requested by ASC an update was provided on progress with Recommendation 22 of the Review of the UG School of Medicine which had called for action to ensure that all University staff, including clinical academics, were made aware of their obligatory teaching responsibilities. It was noted that further steps had been taken to operationalise the Position Statement previously drawn up by the School with a set of proposals approved by the College Management Group. ASC was pleased to note this progress and confirmed that no further updates were required.
ASC/2013/46.2.2 School of Physics & Astronomy
An update on progress with Recommendation 2 concerning disabled access to the common room in Physics and Astronomy was received. It was noted that the School had issued to Estates and Buildings a draft proposal for significant - and prompt - redevelopment of the Kelvin Building which included options for solving the current disabled access issues. ASC welcomed this action and sought information on the response from Estates and Buildings' response to establish whether disabled access would be installed in the common room.
Action: Senate Office
Ms Muir, Head of Academic Collaborations Office, introduced the paper which proposed a policy for a minimum threshold for the input of any partner for the award of a joint, double or multiple degree with the University of Glasgow. If approved, this would be added to the current policy on the minimum amount of study or research to be carried out at the University of Glasgow to receive an award of the University as part of a joint, dual or multiple degree.
ASC heard that in preparing the proposed thresholds, there had been consultation with the Vice Principal (Learning & Teaching), Deans of Graduate Schools and the Research Policy and Strategy Committee. There had also been a survey of practice elsewhere in the sector which had revealed that while other institutions had agreed practices there were not currently any policies in place.
ASC approved the following:
i. the introduction of the following minimum thresholds for the contribution of a partner leading to the award of joint or double/multiple degrees:
|
Minimum contribution of UoG where one partner |
Minimum contribution of partner where one partner |
Minimum contribution of UoG where more than one partner |
Minimum contribution of a partner where more than one partner |
|
| Joint degree |
50% |
40% |
25% |
25% |
| Double degree |
50% |
33% |
- |
- |
| Multiple degree |
- |
- |
25% |
20% |
ii. where there is more than one pathway through a joint or double/ multiple degree, that the 'norm' should be consistent with the thresholds;
iii. that there may be some departure from the above thresholds for the contribution of partners where strong justification is provided. Any proposed departures will need to be considered on a case by case basis by ASC;
iv. where the University is involved in the joint delivery of programmes with an institution that does not have degree awarding powers, that any new programmes should take cognisance of the thresholds but do not need to be strictly adhered to them.
Ms Muir, Head of Academic Collaborations Office, introduced a paper which set out the University's draft response to the QAA consultation on strengthening the quality assurance of UK transnational education (TNE). Ms Muir outlined to members that the QAA consultation included proposals for in-country QA visits to sites of TNE in addition to current quality assurance activity that was in place for monitoring collaborative provision, including TNE where UK degrees were taught entirely offshore. ASC was reminded that existing quality assurance arrangements operated under the framework of Chapter B10 of the Quality Code for Higher Education where internal QA processes were embedded in any TNE provision and that collaborative provision, including TNE, was also covered in the ELIR process.
The draft response had been prepared by Ms Muir in association with the VP (Internationalisation), the VP (Learning & Teaching) and the Senate Office. It presented the clear view that in-country QA visits were considered to be an unnecessary additional layer of QA given the strength of current arrangements which would cover TNE provision.
ASC noted the draft response and confirmed agreement with the position presented.
Mr Gordon and Ms McGowan from RIO attended the meeting to speak to their report which detailed the mapping of University practice and expected standards in the management of Student Exchange and Study Abroad Programmes to Chapter B10 of the QAA Quality Code for Higher Education.
The paper provided commentary on how the University complied with the 19 key indicators in chapter B10 of the Quality Code. It also provided a summary of the University's approach to managing student mobility in terms of organisational structure, roles and responsibilities and the management system across the University. It concluded that the University was complying with the requirements set out in Chapter B10, and identified a number of actions in the areas of Quality Assurance and Student Information which were planned, or were underway, to ensure compliance with the Code.
ASC noted and approved the mapping document including the proposed changes to procedures for Study Abroad Programmes.
In discussion, the Committee also noted that student mobility activity had grown significantly across the University in a short time and that procedures had been set up initially when numbers were low and there was now a need to strengthen underlying procedures to ensure that these were sufficiently robust to deal with the increased student numbers.
ASC agreed that the following should be referred to EdPSC for consideration:
There was a need for commitment of significant additional resource from the University to support the administration of student mobility in order to ensure continued compliance with the Quality Code. As examples, the following aspects of procedure were highlighted as requiring development:
- Introduction of a systematic approach to the review of agreements with greater clarity in procedures for periodic review of the University's agreements with student mobility partners;
- Improving mechanisms for capturing data on the student experience at overseas partners.
The Committee also agreed that action was required to articulate the role of external examiners in grade conversion processes and this would be taken forward by ASC.
Action: Senate Office
ASC approved the proposal to extend the validation of the MA (Hons), Graduate Diploma and MLitt History of Art and Art-World Practice programmes at Christies Education by one further year until end of academic session 2014-2015. A revalidation event would therefore take place during academic session 2014-2015 with a view to validating the programmes for a further six years, effective from September 2015.
ASC noted the details of the PAGs which had been arranged for Semester 2 to review College proposals for new programmes and major programme changes.
The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Tuesday 15 April 2014 at 9.30am in the Melville Room.
Created by: Ms Helen Butcher