University of Glasgow

Academic Standards Committee

Minute of Meeting held on Tuesday 15 April 2014 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room

Present:

Mr Oli Coombs, Professor Frank Coton, Professor Christine Edwards, Professor Neil Evans, Professor Tom Guthrie (Convener), Mr Matthew Hastings, Ms Helen McAvoy (vice Mr George Tait), Dr Martin Macauley, Dr Kevin O'Dell, Dr Anna O'Neill, Dr Helen Stoddart. 

In Attendance:

Ms Helen Butcher

Apologies:

Dr Jack Aitken, Dr Kenny Brophy, Professor John Briggs, Professor Bob Hill, Professor Alice Jenkins, Ms Dawn McKenzie, Dr Anna Morgan-Thomas, Dr Penny Morris, Dr Allison Orr, Ms Anna Phelan, Ms Joanne Ramsey, Dr Karen Renaud, Dr Marco Vezza. 

 
ASC/2013/54 Minutes of the Meeting held on Friday 14 February 2014 

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 February 2014 were approved. 

ASC/2013/55 Matters Arising 

 

ASC/2013/55.1 Programme and Course Approval 

ASC was advised that the items from the previous meeting referred to the Programme & Course Approval Working Group would be considered at a forthcoming meeting of the Working Group, and an updated presented to the next meeting of ASC in May 2014. 

ASC/2013/55.2 Multiple Programme Specifications for Similar Awards (ASC/2013/42) 

ASC received re-drafted guidance on the preparation of Programme Specifications which included advice on when the production of a single specification to cover related degree programmes would be appropriate. Members agreed that single specifications should only be used in cases where there were only minor differences between awards to avoid the use of lengthy documents setting out different sets of programme aims and ILOs. Attention was drawn to recent feedback both at Subject Review and professional accreditation events where concern was raised at the use of identical aims and ILOs in separate programmes. ASC agreed that it was not appropriate for different programmes to have identical aims and ILOs, and that this should be explicitly stated in the guidance. Subject to this alteration the guidance was approved and would be published on the Senate Office website.

Action: Clerk of ASC

ASC/2013/55.3 RIO Review of PGT Market Assessment (ASC/2013/41.2) 

Professor Coton noted from the discussion at ASC's last meeting that the Committee had noted that the RIO market assessment exercise was not part of the decision-making in the programme approval process and had agreed that a clear statement was required in the guidance to reflect this. Professor Coton reported that he had been in dialogue with the Professor Briggs on this matter and it was agreed that the guidance needed to reflect this but also reflect on the position of Colleges in ensuring that programme proposals were viable, and the use of the market assessment report in this aspect of the College's decision-making. 

The following text was presented to ASC and agreed to be appropriate for inclusion in the Programme Approval guidance:

 

In situations where a red light* is issued from RIO with regard to viability, consideration has to be given to any actions that can be taken to improve the viability of the proposal. This can be done in advance of the formal submission of the proposal to College Board of Studies, or it can be considered as part of the process of the College Board of Studies' scrutiny of the proposal. However, it is important to note that any proposal which still has a red light after discussion at the relevant College Board of Studies should not proceed any further to the ASC until the various questions of robustness, viability, deliverability and alignment have been satisfactorily addressed. This would need to be demonstrated in the material sent on to ASC, not only through a revised proposal itself, but also in the minutes of the meeting of the relevant College Board of Studies.

*Given the subsequent agreement by ASC to alter the titling of the market assessment outcomes, the online guidance would be revised to reflect this - amending 'red light' references to 'low market potential'.

Action: Clerk of ASC

ASC/2013/56 Convener's Business 

There were no items of Convener's business. 

ASC/2013/57 College Annual Monitoring Summaries 

 

ASC/2013/57.1 Update on Actions from 2011-12 and 2012-13 Reports 

 The Committee received an update on a number of actions identified previously from both the 2011-12 and 2012-13 annual monitoring reports. These related to accommodation for learning and teaching, staff workloads in light of increased PGT numbers, and induction procedures for students commencing their study at the University in January (Semester 2). ASC noted the updates relating to actions and information being reported to EdPSC.

Actions relating to the improvement of staff engagement with the annual monitoring process itself were considered under minute ASC/2013/57.3 below. 

ASC/2013/57.2 College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences (PG Addendum) 

 Professor Evans introduced the annual monitoring report on PGT activity in the College of MVLS. Members noted the various elements of good practice highlighted, and particularly the increasing use of electronic learning resources in teaching. Professor Evans also referred to issues relating to the some of the delivery of e-learning, particularly restricted access to wireless facilities, as this was unfortunately impeding some of this good practice.

ASC noted that Exam Board processes had been highlighted in the report under key themes for development opportunities, and clarification was sought on this. Professor Edwards confirmed that this related to practical arrangements such as scheduling, rather than the assessment process itself. 

ASC/2013/57.3 Revisions to Annual Monitoring Process 

 ASC received a report detailing a proposed change to the annual monitoring process which was broadly based on current successful practice in the School of Engineering. The change involved an alternative approach to gathering information for annual monitoring which did not rely on the completion and submission of forms. Schools and Subjects would have the option to replace annual monitoring forms with minuted discussion of meetings where staff responsible for "units of learning" would meet in groupings appropriate to local structures to review their provision collectively. Meetings would be chaired by the School Quality Officer and a structured minute of the meeting would capture the information (including a list of directed actions) which would be forwarded to the College Quality Officer to inform College Annual Monitoring.

It was noted that the Quality Officers Forum had discussed the proposal, had commented on earlier drafts, and was in agreement with the principle. ASC welcomed the proposal as a positive step to refresh the annual monitoring process and improve staff engagement. It was noted from the report that this change was designed to address current challenges in the process relating to i) slowness in reporting; ii) early action on issues identified; and iii) providing feedback to staff undertaking the annual monitoring (closing the loop).

Both the Vice Principal (Learning & Teaching) and Dr Macauley, Convener of the QOF, agreed that the approach used in the School of Engineering had led to real engagement in the annual review of provision.

ASC therefore approved the proposal in principle in order for the QOF to explore using this approach for the 2013-14 annual monitoring.

ASC/2013/58 Programme Approval 

 

ASC/2013/58.1 Reports from Semester 2 Programme Approval Groups 

ASC/2013/58.1.1 College of Arts

ASC noted the report on the PAG's consideration of 20 proposals for major changes or new programmes in both undergraduate and taught postgraduate provision in the College of Arts.

The PAG Convener, Dr O'Dell, reported continuing concern at the variability in the nature of proposals with some being far more detailed and prescriptive than others. It was noted that two proposals could not be approved due to outstanding consultations for which feedback was required. The remaining programmes had been recommended for approval subject to completion of actions identified in the report. ASC would receive a further update on progress with the completion of actions at its next meeting in May. 

ASC/2013/58.1.2 College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences

ASC reviewed the PAG report considering proposals received from the College of MVLS. Nine postgraduate proposals were recommended to ASC and a further 17 had been approved by the PAG subject to completion of actions currently outstanding.

It was noted that the PAG Convener, Professor Hill, had reported that overall the programme specifications were of a high standard. He also reported on a lack of consultation with all Schools which would be involved in the proposed new CertHE Pre-medical and Pre-dental Studies. In noting the major change to all the MSci programmes in the School of Life Sciences, ASC was reminded that this had arisen from a recommendation at the School's Subject review, and that the PAG had agreed that in this case RIO consultation was not required. It was also noted that the course specification for the final year project was not yet in place, however the PAG was content that this would be produced before the academic year 2015-16 when projects were first required.

ASC approved the following proposals for introduction in 2014-15:

Master of Public Health (delivered in conjunction with Sun Yat Sen University) - New

MSc Cancer Sciences - New

MSc Clinical Trials and Stratified Medicine - New

MSc Primary Care (delivered in conjunction with Sun Yat Sen University) - New

MSc Sport & Exercise Science and Medicine (Distance Learning) - New

Master of Public Health - Major Change

MSc Biotechnology - Major Change

MSc Sport & Exercise Science and Medicine - Major Change

MSc (MedSci) Medical Genetics - Major Change

ASC would receive a further update on progress with the completion of actions for the remaining proposals at its next meeting in May.

ASC/2013/58.1.3 College of Science & Engineering

ASC noted the report on the PAG's consideration of nine proposals from the College of Science and Engineering for major changes or new programmes in undergraduate and taught postgraduate provision.

The PAG Convener, Professor Evans, reported that one programme specification covering multiple programmes had been referred back as it had become unintelligible in trying to cover information for different programmes and therefore separate specifications had been requested. He also noted that many of the proposals could not be approved as the RIO consultation was yet to take place. In one case, the proposed new programme, MSc Sensor & Imaging Systems, had been developed in response to an award of funding for a joint MSc in the subject to be run by Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities and it had been suggested that for this reason, no market assessment was necessary. ASC fully supported the view of the PAG that all proposals required consultation with RIO. Members agreed that this allowed for both a market assessment to be made to check the basic viability of any proposal, and for RIO to provide advice on the presentation of the programme for marketing. This was still considered relevant even if a funding source had been agreed.

ASC's attention was also drawn to the proposal for a new MSc Psychology (Conversion Programme). The PAG had been notified that the College of Social Sciences had become aware of this proposal and had raised concerns at its similarity to their existing Masters degree - MSc Psychological Studies - offered jointly by the School of Education and the School of Psychology. The College of Social Sciences were concerned at the possibility of confusion between the two programmes and that they could be in direct competition. The PAG noted that there was similarity between the two programmes. It was also noted that no RIO consultation had yet taken place, but the PAG anticipated that the concerns raised by Social Sciences should be taken into account when the market assessment was undertaken. ASC agreed that RIO should be asked to ensure that the market assessment exercise routinely took account of activity elsewhere within the University to ensure that there was no duplication of provision or unnecessary internal competition.

Action: Clerk of ASC

No proposals from this College were currently ready for full approval as they all had outstanding actions to be completed. ASC would receive a further update on progress with these at its next meeting in May. 

ASC/2013/58.1.4 College of Social Sciences

The Committee noted that approval of the proposed Master of Education (MEduc) had been confirmed out of committee in February with the new programme due to commence in session 2014-15.

ASC received the report on the Semester 2 PAG's consideration of 17 proposals from the College of Social Sciences for major changes or new undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes. Professor Edwards, the PAG convener reported that a number of proposals were for similar degrees with different specialisms and that the PAG had not always been able to identify how these were distinct from each other. Issues had also been raised regarding the weighting of credits in some programmes which were unbalanced between semesters 1 and 2 without any clear reason being given in the proposal.

All programmes had been recommended for approval subject to completion of actions identified in the report. ASC would receive a further update on progress with theses at its next meeting in May. 

ASC/2013/58.2 Revised Market Assessment Process Update from RIO 

 Further to discussion with Ms Gray, Head of Strategic Marketing in RIO, at the last meeting ASC received a paper detailing revisions to the RIO market assessment process which was undertaken as part of the programme approval process.

ASC welcomed the replacement of the traffic lights assigned to completed market assessment with a market potential rating. With the provision that references to 'module' be replaced with 'course', ASC agreed to recommend the revised process to EdPSC for approval - see Appendix 1.

Action: Clerk of ASC

ASC/2013/58.3 Feedback on Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) 

 Members considered a paper reporting on feedback received from Dr Bovill in the Learning and Teaching Centre which had been passed on by the College of Social Sciences when programme proposals were submitted to the Semester 2 PAG.

The feedback concerned the structure of ILOs within programme specifications noting that their division into knowledge, skills and transferrable skills was not particularly helpful as many ILOs overlapped between these areas. It was therefore requested that these distinctions be removed. ASC noted that the current structure for ILOs in the programme specifications had been in place since 2008-09 and that prior to this two headings were used - knowledge & understanding, and skills & other attributes. ASC suggested that the current structure could be loosened so that the presentation of ILOs did not have to be sub-divided, although it would be important for programme developers to understand that ILOs needed to cover all of these areas: knowledge, skills and transferrable skills.

Concern had also been raised regarding previous PAG feedback on the wording of ILOs, as there was a sense that certain verbs such as 'demonstrate', 'determine', 'illustrate' and 'identify' had been banned from the construction of ILOs, leading to a concern that an overly generalised approach had been taken in the scrutiny process. ASC confirmed that there had not been any formal decision to ban certain words in the use of ILOs, and it was accepted that in some cases the less preferred verbs could be used if alternative words were used in other ILOs. Members suggested that the main problem lay with the construction of ILOs at Masters level and the need for programme level ILOs to be sufficiently robust. There was concern that in some cases there was a failure to distinguish between course and programme ILOs when the programme specification document needed to focus on programme ILOs at a level appropriate for the award. It was also observed that it did not appear that programme specification authors always used the guidance that was available and instead may simply refer to older ILOs. It was suggested that in some areas there was a lack of enthusiasm for writing and using ILOs; however it was also observed that where staff did engage with them real benefits were achieved which helped to address significant challenges such as over-assessment.

Members agreed that there should not be any banning of the use of certain words within ILOs but that further consideration could be given to the guidance on the wording and presentation of ILOs as part of the overall guidance on programme specifications. It was agreed that these issues should be referred to the Programme and Course Approval Working Group for further consideration.

Action: Clerk of PCAWG

ASC/2013/59 Revised Guidelines on Discretion 

 Following consideration of revised guidelines on discretion at the previous meeting, ASC received further revisions to the guidance which had been made to improve clarity and include examples of options available to Boards of Examiners. This guidance appeared in section 2 of the Guide to the Code of Assessment and would be disseminated widely to Schools to ensure that Boards of Examiners were aware of the update.

Members were reminded that the development of the guidance had originated from a recommendation of the University's last but one Enhancement-led Institutional Review and that the Draft Outcome to the most recent ELIR had also sought ongoing monitoring of the impact of the guidelines. The University now had guidance in place and had therefore moved from a position of a significant variation in practice across Schools and Colleges to more consistency. Transparency was also a feature of the guidelines as Schools were urged to ensure that, where possible, agreed criteria to be used in determining discretion be publicised in advance and made available to students.

The guidelines related to the process of considering candidates whose final GPA fell within the zone of discretion in order to determine whether the classification for their final award could be moved up to the next category. It was noted that the approach of the guidelines was to prescribe criteria which could not be used in determining decisions on results in the zone of discretion, and to outline options for Examination Boards to take in their approach to these decisions. An element of discretion was to remain as this was a principle which had been agreed by the Senate and therefore the guidelines could not be wholly prescriptive.

Mr Coombs noted the reference to the advance publication of agreed criteria for discretion and suggested that the example of the programme document as the locus of publication may not be particularly helpful as these documents were published annually at the beginning of the new academic session at a point when discretion criteria may not yet have been agreed. ASC agreed that the principle was that the information was made available to students whenever it had been agreed, and the particular place of publication was of less importance.

Dr Macauley suggested that the introduction of the guidance on discretion had created additional resource requirements in the School of Engineering as it had led to an increase in the administrative preparation of data for Exam Boards.

ASC approved the revised guidance as set out in Appendix 2. The new version of the guidelines would be published in the online Guide to the Code of Assessment and circulated to Schools as a matter of urgency to ensure that the information was disseminated in advance of the forthcoming examination diet.

Action: Senate Office

ASC/2013/60 Degree Classification Data: Report from Short-Life Working Group (Reserved Business) 

This item is reserved to members of the committee and will be emailed out separately. 

ASC/2013/61 Periodic Subject Review 

 

ASC/2013/61.1 Full Review Reports 

ASC/2013/61.1.1 Nursing & Health Care

The Committee received the report of the PSR for Nursing and Healthcare held on 4 and 5 December 2013. The report identified many strengths in the subject area including the commitment of staff to providing a high quality student experience, excellent teaching, good student support mechanisms, good engagement with students, innovative assessment methods and clarity of ILOs. The School had also shown an awareness of areas requiring improvement which were recognised in the 14 recommendations set out in the report.

ASC members reviewing the report noted the following points in particular:

  • The School had come back strongly from the previous review and threat of closure.
  • The excellent teaching was a key strength identified in the report and the integration of the science teaching with the School of Life Sciences as detailed in paragraph 4.4.4 of the report was noted as part of this.
  • It was suggested that the online peer assessment outlined in paragraph 4.3.3 could be disseminated to other Schools as an example of innovative practice.
  • In terms of recommendation 3, it was suggested that this might be an action that could be taken at wider University level, as well as by the College.

ASC approved the report and its recommendations for onward transmission to the relevant areas.

Action: Senate Office

ASC/2013/61.2 12-Month Update Reports 

ASC/2013/61.2.1 College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences - PGT

ASC received the 12-month update report from the review of PGT Medicine which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. It was noted that the PSR Convener confirmed that, from the documentation provided, MVLS had taken the recommendations very seriously and had responded with appropriate action, and that no more could be expected at this stage. The ASC reviewers agreed that MVLS should be commended for the detailed response to the recommendations, and noted that their strategy document had resulted from detailed discussions between the key stakeholders. It was also noted that the restructuring of PGT provision and the renewed vigour for international recruitment and collaboration had been well thought out.

A number of small points for clarification were referred to the College of MVLS:

  • Confirmation was sought on whether the market assessment had incorporated recruitment opportunities associated with a January start, and if this has been considered by the College a reference on this would be informative.
  • In noting the intention to stop the sharing of UG and PGT courses, confirmation is sought on whether courses will be available to senior undergraduates studying at level 11.
  • It was noted that the review of PGT annual monitoring reports would be undertaken by the PTC, but it would be useful to know whether there will be a mechanism for coordination with the review of the UG reports, and any common themes identified.

As a final point, it was not clear whether the restructuring of the PGT programmes had included any rationalising of the number of programmes, for example by offering a range of specialisations from a core set of MSc programmes. It was noted that this approach had recently been proposed within Engineering and might be something for the College of MVLS to consider.

Action: Senate Office

ASC/2013/61.2.2 School of Modern Languages & Cultures

ASC received the 12-month update report from the review of the School of Modern Languages & Cultures which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. It was noted that the PSR Convener considered that the Panel's recommendations had been, as far as possible, given full and appropriate consideration.

ASC reviewer, Professor Hill, had also reported prior to the meeting that the response to all the recommendations was very thorough and good progress was being made in most of the areas. Points were raised regarding two recommendations:

Recommendation 3 - it was noted that the involvement of students in the working group was "not felt to be appropriate". ASC suggested that as an alternative, the School could consider the use of student focus groups to engage with the student body.

Recommendation 4 - there was some concern that the response did not appear to address issue of recompense for GTA staff and further detail on this was therefore sought.

Action: Senate Office

ASC/2013/61.2.3 School of Veterinary Medicine (Undergraduate Provision)

ASC received the 12-month update report from the review of the School of Veterinary Medicine which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. It was noted that the PSR Convener considered that the Panel's recommendations had been, as far as possible, given full and appropriate consideration.

ASC reviewers agreed with this and noted that the actions taken to address Recommendations 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 8, 9, 12 and 13 appeared to be reasonable and appropriate, directly targeting the specific issues raised. For Recommendation 1 it was agreed that the proposed timescale for implementing the changes to the MSci curriculum was acceptable. It was agreed that reports on further progress should be requested in relation to the following recommendations:

Recommendation 4: The BSc Veterinary Biosciences programme board had asked course leaders to revise their ILOs for the start of 2014-2015. An update on this should be provided to ASC in October.

Recommendation 10: While a new bus services has been introduced between Garscube and Gilmorehill there are two current surveys (the University travel survey and a more detailed Garscube survey) where results were not yet available. A follow-up report should be provided once the survey results have been considered.

Recommendation 11: ASC requests a follow-up report in October to appraise the progress made in terms of preparing the strategic plan for the small Animal Hospital.   

ASC/2013/61.3 Update Reports 

ASC/2013/61.3.1 School of Education

ASC noted the latest update from the School of Education regarding the publication of an overview of programmes on its website as detailed in Recommendation of 10 of the PSR held in February 2012. It was noted that this was not complete and would be aligned to the launch of TSF compliant programmes in August 2014. ASC therefore sought confirmation of the completion of this action to be submitted to its first meeting in Session 2014-15 (October 2014). 

ASC/2013/61.3.2 School of Physics & Astronomy

A response was reported to ASC which had been received by Estates & Buildings in relation to the PSR recommendation from February 2012 concerning disabled access to the Kelvin Building. Members noted that this referred to further consideration of the University's Estates Strategy in June 2014 and it was agreed that a further update should be provided after this to ASC in October.  

ASC/2013/62 Report of the Meeting of the Joint Board of the University of Glasgow and Christies Education 13 February 2014 

ASC received and noted the report of the Meeting of the Joint Board of the University of Glasgow and Christies' Education. The revised remit and membership of the Board for the current session were approved. 

ASC/2013/63 ELIR Early Draft Outcome Report 

 ASC received for information the Early Draft Outcome Report from the Enhancement-led Institutional Review which had taken place during February and March 2014. Members were advised that this draft was the University's initial notification of the ELIR outcome and that the University would subsequently have the opportunity to comment on the Draft Outcome Report (the next version) when it was issued.

Members were pleased to note that the formal outcome which found the University to have effective arrangements for managing academic standards and the student learning experience, which were also likely to continue to be effective in the future, was the optimal outcome possible from the Review. Members also noted that this positive judgement and the positive report reflected the University's robust arrangements for securing academic standards and enhancing the quality of the student experience.

The Vice Principal (Learning & Teaching), Professor Coton, drew attention to the Committee's extensive contribution to the maintenance of standards across the University and wished to congratulate the Committee on its dedicated work in this area and the positive impact this had made on the ELIR outcome.

ASC noted the areas for development highlighted in the report (paragraphs 12 to 19) and noted in particular that further work would be required from the Committee in relation to paragraph 18 which covered the issue of assessment regulations and the continued monitoring of guidelines on discretion. Further information would be awaited from the final version of the Outcome Report and the detailed Technical Report, and thereafter ASC would determine the most appropriate means for taking these matters forward.

ASC/2013/64 Any Other Business 

There was no other business 

ASC/2013/65 Date of Next Meeting 

The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 23 May 2014 at 9.30am in the Melville Room

 

Created by: Ms Helen Butcher