University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Minute of Meeting held on Friday 23 May 2014 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room
Dr Jack Aitken, Dr Kenny Brophy, Professor John Briggs, Mr Oli Coombs, Professor Christine Edwards, Professor Neil Evans, Professor Tom Guthrie (Convener), Mr Matthew Hastings, Professor Alice Jenkins, Dr Martin Macauley, Dr Anna Morgan-Thomas, Dr Anna O'Neill, Dr Allison Orr, Dr Karen Renaud, Dr Helen Stoddart, Dr Marco Vezza.
In Attendance:Mr Gavin Lee, Mr Cal Davies, Mrs Lesley Fielding (for item ASC/2013/69), Mrs Catherine Omand (for item ASC/2013/73.4), Dr Alistair Payne (for item ASC/2013/75.4)
Apologies:Professor Bob Hill, Ms Helen McAvoy (vice Mr George Tait), Ms Dawn McKenzie, Dr Penny Morris, Dr Kevin O'Dell, Ms Anna Phelan, Ms Joanne Ramsey.
The Committee noted that there were four amendments to the minutes of the meeting held on 15 April 2014.
ASC/2013/57.2 College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences PG Addendum
Amend "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." to read:
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 two separate issues with external examiners which have been addressed, rather than the assessment process itself.
ASC 2013/61.1.1.1 Nursing and Health Care
Amend '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' to be 'In terms of recommendation 2'.
ASC 2013/59 Revised Guidelines on Discretion
Amend '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.' to read:
Dr Macauley suggested that the introduction of the guidance on discretion had created additional resource requirements across the University as it had led to an increase in the administrative preparation of data for Exam Boards.
ASC 2013/61.2.1College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences - PGT
Amend 'PGT Medicine' to 'PGT MVLS'.
The minutes were accepted, with amendment, to be an accurate reflection of the meeting held on 15 April 2014.
Academic Standards Committee approved revisions to the Annual Monitoring process in principle in April 2014 and delegated further discussion and decision making to Quality Officers Forum (QOF). The Convener of QOF confirmed that the process revisions had been agreed and guidance had been circulated to Schools by the Senate Office.
ASC noted that EdPSC had approved the revised Market Assessment Process which had been reported to ASC in April 2014. ASC also noted that a formulation of words had been agreed to clarify the input of College Management Groups in the approval of programmes in relation to strategic and financial viability of proposals.
[Clerk's note: The following wording was agreed:
In the programme approval process, RIO's judgement of market potential will be a critical factor to be taken into account in whether the proposed programme is approved by the College and taken forward to the Academic Standards Committee (ASC). In situations where a judgement of low market potential (formerly 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 should normally be done in advance of the formal submission of the proposal to College Board of Studies. It is important to note that ASC Programme Approval Groups are required to verify that Colleges have taken appropriate steps to ensure that programmes are robust, viable and deliverable and in the interest of the University. For this reason, any proposal which has received a judgement of low market potential from RIO at any stage of the College process should not proceed from the College to ASC until:
a) the College Management Group (or another body acting on the CMG's behalf) is satisfied the proposal demonstrates strategic alignment and is viable in terms of financial and all other resources
and
b) the College Board of Studies is satisfied that the academic aspects of robustness, viability and deliverability have been addressed
This would need to be demonstrated in the material sent on to ASC in support of the proposal, not only through a revised proposal itself, but also in the minutes of the meetings of the relevant College Board of Studies and the College Management Group (or of the body to which the College Management Group has delegated responsibility for such decisions).]
Academic Standards Committee noted that a meeting had been held to discuss the appropriateness of submitting single programmes specifications to cover multiple programmes. This meeting was held subsequent to the Programme Approval Group for the College of Science and Engineering to consider BSc and MSci programmes. It was agreed in principle that degrees with different pathways could be covered with a single programme specification and specialisms reflected as 'endorsements' on the award/transcript.
The Committee received an updated from Recruitment and International Office that Student Mobility was the subject of an ongoing business improvement review led by the Director of Process Improvement. The review was expected to identify 'quick wins' and longer term role, responsibility and system changes in order to enhance the process. ASC agreed to request a further update from RIO in 2014-15.
Action: Senate Office
The School of Computing Science raised a concern that the University Policy on Penalties for Late Submission for Coursework had unintended consequences and was encouraging students to submit coursework late. As per the policy, a piece of coursework due on a Friday would be subject to a two-point penalty if submitted on Monday as penalties are only subtracted for week-days. The School of Computing Science considered that students were unfairly using this system to gain two extra days for a piece of coursework with minimal impact. It was noted around the Committee that this was not an issue in other Schools - though some had moved deadlines to prevent this occurring e.g. establishing Monday deadlines.
It was noted that Academic Regulations Sub-Committee (ARSC) had considered the efficacy of the Late Submission of Coursework Policy recently and it was agreed that the outcomes of that discussion should be circulated to the Committee for information, particularly in relation to part-time students.
Action: Clerk to ASC
Additionally, it was agreed that ARSC should be asked to review the Policy in relation to the increasing submission of coursework online. The ability to submit coursework online removes the requirement for coursework to be submitted on a weekday and may require the amendment of the policy to include weekends in the penalty calculation.
Action: Academic Regulations Sub-Committee
Mrs Lesley Fielding presented the Annual Report on External Examiners Reports for Session 2012-13 to the Committee. ASC noted that 95% of reports had been submitted in time for the collation of the report, which was the highest submission rate since 2008-9 and indicated the online submission system was functioning well. The online system had also facilitated the routine publication of external examiner reports from January 2014 in line with the UK Quality Code requirements. One hundred and ten individuals had viewed the reports online between January and May. The report highlighted the most common issues raised in reports which required a response from Schools (15% of reports) including 40 comments in relation to marking and the marking scheme and 33 comments in relation to assessment and feedback. These both represented increases in the number of comments from session 2011-12. The Convener requested a follow-up report detailing the specific comments from External Examiners in relation to marking and the marking scheme including the responses from Schools. The Clerk of Senate noted that the concerns around assessment and feedback from external examiners reports were echoed in the Periodic Subject Review Reports and this re-enforced the need for review. The comments on overlap of examination and essay topics were particularly concerning in relation to the increased use of continuous assessment. Mrs Fielding agreed to provide further information on the comments and responses in relation to marking and the marking scheme and assessment and feedback.
Action: Mrs L Fielding
Academic Standards Committee received an update from the Short-Life Working Group on Degree Classification Data outlining the engagement process with Schools to validate and review degree classification data at the subject-level. The Report proposed that School Quality Officers were provided with the relevant data for their School and subject areas and were responsible for liaising with Heads of School on the most effective way of reviewing the data in their area. The paper proposed various approaches including consideration at School Learning and Teaching Committee, Board of Examiners meeting or through annual monitoring. Academic Standards Committee approved this approach.
Action: Clerk to Short-Life Working Group on Degree Classification Data
The Committee received a paper from Dr Aitken, Director of the Senate Office, outlining the issues and questions in relation to the University's regulatory framework and policy implications in the light of the Online Learning Project which sought to introduce new online courses and programmes and the development of online versions of existing courses. ASC noted that the paper reviewed a range of topics but did not identify any fundamental issues of principle in relation to:
- Assessment policy
- Degree regulations
- Other regulations
- Quality assurance and enhancement
Dr Aitken confirmed that online provision would be subject to the normal processes for approval and review and that these processes would include the comparison of online learning and the equivalent on-campus provision on a range of metrics including, but not limited to, student attainment and student satisfaction.
The committee identified a number of practical considerations when developing provision for online learning. It was agreed that courses and programmes which were delivered both on-campus and online would require separate course and programme codes if the intended learning outcomes or assessment schemes were different. This may be required where on-campus formats were not suitable for online delivery e.g. group project.
It was noted that method and range of assessment would also have to be considered for online learning provision giving the requirement for security of assessment when conducted at a distance. It was agreed that the range of assessments would have to be sufficiently broad to allow the assessment schemes to adequately measure the achievement of the intended learning outcomes. In addition, consideration should be given to the development of Graduate Attributes through online learning.
It was agreed that it would be beneficial for the Committee to review a set of course and programme specifications which had been reviewed and revised for transfer to online provision as a pilot to identify the practical and pedagogical amendments required.
Action: Dr Aitken
Mr Coombs sought clarification on the duty of care the University would owe to students on online learning programmes and to what extent student's pastoral needs and access to student services would be catered for. Mrs Christine Lowther, Director of Student Services, was a member of the Online Learning Project Board and was convening a working group to consider these implications. It was also agreed that the Code of Practice on Student Representation should be reviewed to take account of online learning provision and to consider the challenges this would bring for student representation and engagement.
Action: Senate Office
Academic Standards Committee noted the report from the Programme and Course Approval Working Group of 1 May 2014. The report contained an update on the proposed amendment to the role of Schools in the approval of courses and programmes and it was noted that this would feed into a review group established to review the end-to-end programme approval process convened by the Director of the Senate Office. The working group would report to ASC in 2014-15.
The report also noted that Working Group had approved the removal of a requirement for external consultation for the suspension of a programme and that revised guidance would be circulated by the Clerk to the Working Group.
The Working Group had received a report detailing required changes to programme specifications to meet UK Quality Code Chapter B10 expectations on capturing of data for collaborative provision. In response, a number of administrative changes were agreed to the programme specification for 2014-15.
The Convener of ASC requested a further update from the Working Group at the next meeting on construction of ILOs as discussed at ASC/2013/58.3 Feedback on Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs).
Action: Convener of PCAWG
ASC/2013/72.2.1 College of Arts
ASC received and noted the report from the College of Arts Programme Approval Group held on 20 March 2014 and therefore the following were approved.
The PAG confirmed that all requirements had now been met and recommended the following programmes:
MA Honours Portuguese (Joint) - New
MLitt in Ancient Culture (to be introduced in 2015-16) - New
MLitt in Art History: The Renaissance in Northern Europe & Italy - New
MLitt in Curatorial Practice (Contemporary Art) - New
MMus Sonic Arts - New
MSc Art History: Art in Germany (to be introduced in 2015-16) - New
MSc in Gender History - New
MSc in Values Based Practice: Faith Communities - New
MSc in Values Based Practice: Health and Social Care - New
MSc in Values Based Practice: Peacebuilding - New
BMus Honours Music - Change
MA Honours Music (Joint) - Change
MA Honours Music (Single) - Change
MA Honours Comparative Literature (Joint) - Change
The following degrees were withdrawn as they were identified as exit awards and did not require PAG approval:
MA (European Culture and Civilisation)
MA (Ancient Studies)
MA (Historical Studies)
MA (Linguistic Studies)
MA (Literary Studies)
MA (Philosophical Studies)
MA (Scottish Studies)
MA (Theology and Religious studies)
ASC/2013/72.2.2 College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences
The Committee received an update report from the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Programme Approval Group held on 27 March 2014. The following programmes were approved.
The PAG confirmed that all requirements had now been met and recommended the following programmes:
CertHE: Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Studies - New
MSci Programmes - Work Placement Year - Change
Msci in Anatomy
MSci in Biochemistry
MSci in Genetics
MSci in Immunology
MSci in Molecular & Cellular Biology (with Biotechnology)
MSci in Molecular & Cellular Biology (with Plant Science)
MSci in Marine & Freshwater Biology
MSci in Microbiology
MSci in Molecular & Cellular Biology
MSci in Neuroscience
MSci in Parasitology
MSci in Pharmacology
MSci in Physiology
MSci in Physiology, Sports Science & Nutrition
MSci in Physiology & Sports Science
MSci in Virology
MSci in Zoology
ASC/2013/72.2.3 College of Science & Engineering
The Update Report from the College of Science and Engineering Programme Approval Group held on 17 March 2014 identified five new programmes given approval and four programmes which were not approved. As noted in Matters Arising (ASC/2013/67.3) the Convener of ASC and the Dean (Learning and Teaching) had agreed a resolution to the outstanding concern and the programmes would be resubmitted shortly.
The PAG confirmed that all requirements had now been met and recommended the following programmes:
MSc Biomedical Engineering - New
MSc Civil Engineering - New
MSc Sensor & Imaging Systems - New
MSc Psychological Science (previously MSc Psychology) (Conversion) - New
MSc Data Science - New
The PAG cannot recommend approval of the following programmes at present:
BSc (Hons) Computing Science with Specialism - New
BSc (Hons) Computing Science with Specialism (Faster Route) - New
MSci Computing Science with Specialism - New
MSci Computing Science with Specialism (Faster Route) - New
ASC/2013/72.2.4 College of Social Sciences
ASC received and noted the report from the College of Social Sciences Programme Approval Group held on 27 March 2014 and therefore the following were approved.
The PAG confirmed that all requirements had now been met and recommended the following programmes:
Certificate of Higher Education in Counselling Skills - New
Certificate of Higher Education in Psychology - New
Diploma of Higher Education in Egyptology - New
Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice - New
Postgraduate Certificate in Legal Education - New
MSc Tourism, Heritage & Sustainability - New
MSc Urban Transport - New
MSc International Real Estate & Management* - New
MSc International Management & Leadership - Change
MSc International Strategic Marketing - Change
MSc International Strategic Marketing (EIA) - Change
MSc International Business & Entrepreneurship - Change
MSc Finance & Management - Change
MSc International Business & Design Innovation - Change
MSc Public Policy & Management - Change
*Note that this proposal was originally submitted as a change proposal, but was later amended to 'new' as amended regulations were required.
The PAG recommended the following programmes subject to the satisfactory outcome of actions identified in the report:
MSc Tourism, Heritage & Development - New
Once the PAG had confirmed the actions were complete, the proposals would be submitted for final approval under summer powers by the Convener of ASC and the Clerk of Senate.
Action: Convener of ASC and Clerk of Senate
The PAG cannot recommend approval of the following programmes at present:
MSc Management - Change
MSc Management with Enterprise & Business Growth - Change
MSc Management with Human Resources - Change
MSc Management with International Finance - Change
Professor Edwards reported a concern from the Programme Approval Group that a number of programmes were seeking to implement an unequal balance of credits across semesters (e.g. 50:70 rather than 60:60). The Convener confirmed that, while possible, the programme approval process required very clear academic justification for the approval of an imbalanced credit structure.
Academic Standards Committee approved the fast track arrangements for Summer 2014, approving a Fast Track Programme Approval Group Meeting in July 2014 to consider a new Taught PhD Programme in Economics for introduction in 2015-16.
The Committee approved the timetable for Programme Approval for 2014-15.
ASC/2013/73.1.1 Economic & Social History
Academic Standards Committee received the report of the Economic and Social History Periodic Subject Review held on 23 and 24 January 2014. The Committee noted that the report made four commendations and four recommendations. The subject was highly commended for the overall quality of provision and the dedication of staff. ASC noted that the subject had paid particular attention to developing effective assessment and examination feedback systems with clearly articulated ILOs and effective communication with students.
ASC approved the report and its four recommendations.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2013/73.1.2 Philosophy
The Report of the Periodic Subject Review of Philosophy outlined a subject with a strong sense of community and cohesion - assisted in the development of a student community through the use of 'reading parties' - commitment from staff and good pastoral and peer support to students.
The Report identifies recommendations 13, 14, 15 and 20 in relation to Graduate Teaching Assistants. Dr Vezza identified a concern in relation to the reliance on Graduate Teaching Assistants to provide significant proportions of teaching given the potential for GTA availability to change year-on-year and to be limited by the guideline cap on GTA working hours. It was agreed to amend recommendation 13 in relation to the risk of reliance on GTAs.
[Clerk's note: Revised recommendation 13:
The Panel recommends that the Subject, together with the School of Humanities and the College of Arts, consider what options are available to secure an adequate, consistent and dedicated budget for the provision of Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs), conducts a risk assessment relating to the continued availability of GTAs and, if necessary, put in place sufficient mechanisms to minimise the risk of over-reliance upon GTAs. In undertaking this the Subject is encouraged to reflect on the College of Arts policy on the role of GTAs.]
Dr Vezza also noted that the Subject did not hold a subject-level Staff-Student Liaison Committee, instead invited student representatives to attend the Learning and Teaching Committee, which prevented students from the opportunity to chair the meeting. The report encouraged the subject to review this and to consider the guidelines provided in the Guidance on the Operation of Staff-Student Liaison Committees.
It was noted that there was an apparent inconsistency between paragraph 3.5.1 of the report which indicated that 'the programmes offered by the Subject Area remained current and valid in light of developing knowledge in the discipline, and practice in its application' and the recommendation in paragraph 3.5.11 which read 'The Panel recommends that the Subject undertake a comprehensive review of the curriculum at all levels. The Subject should review the content of courses to ensure the currency and coherence of programmes, including progression across levels.'
Action: Senate Office
ASC noted that recommendations 1 and 4 were recorded as 'urgent' and required an update to the November meeting of ASC. It was agreed that recommendations 1, 2 and 4 should be completed in advance of the new term beginning in September 2014. Additionally, the Subject should be asked to provide an update on activity in relation to recommendations 1, 2, 4, 5 and 13 in November 2014.
The Committee approved the 22 recommendations, subject to the amendments agreed above.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2013/73.1.3 School of Computing Science
The Committee received a report of the Periodic Subject Review of Computing Science held on 13 and 14 February 2014. The Report identified ten commendations and fourteen recommendations. The Review Panel recognised a successful, hard-working School which had a worldwide reputation and sought to deliver a high quality learning and teaching environment while also engaging in high-level research and developing effective links with industry.
ASC noted that recommendation 11, in relation to student mobility, was a theme which had been identified in the reviews of Sociology and Theology and Religious Studies. It was agreed that this recommendation should be revised to recommend a discussion involving the subject, RIO and the Dean of International Mobility. The Clerk of Senate noted that while staff did not consider student mobility to be a high priority for students, students who met the Panel had expressed interest.
Action: Senate Office
The Committee noted that the School was considering a School-specific progression policy with minimum levels of attainment for progression within Computing Science. ASC requested further information on this development in the follow-up report.
Action: School of Computing Science
Academic Standards Committee approved the 14 recommendations, subject to the amendment to recommendation 11, and added the requirement for additional information to be provided in relation to progression.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2013/73.1.4 Sociology
The Periodic Subject Review of Sociology was held on 25 and 26 February 2014 and concluded that the subject provided research-led teaching which was supported by dedicated staff and provided a rewarding and support student environment. The subject provided a commendable range of courses for students; however the Review Panel noted their concerns with the sustainability of this breadth.
It was noted that the Report contained a significant number of recommendations overall and a number of recommendations in relation to PGT provision and Graduate Teaching Assistants.
It was agreed that recommendation 5, in relation to the use of on-campus and off-campus teaching accommodation, would be sent to the Director of Estates and Buildings for information.
Action: Senate Office
ASC noted that recommendation 15, in relation to student mobility, was a theme which had been identified in the reviews of Computing Science and Theology and Religious Studies. It was agreed that this recommendation should be revised to recommend a discussion involving the subject, RIO and the Dean of International Mobility.
Action: Senate Office
Academic Standards Committee approved the report and the 17 recommendations therein, subject to the amendments agreed above.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2013/73.1.4 Theology & Religious Studies
Academic Standards Committee received the Periodic Subject Review Report for Theology and Religious Studies, held on 6 March 2014, which contained 13 recommendations and 8 commendations. The report identified the strong leadership of the Head of Subject in developing and maintaining enthusiasm amongst staff and students for the subject and strength in both theology and religious studies.
Academic Standards Committee noted that the Subject was encouraged to progress the redevelopment of PGT provision but that this was not recorded as a recommendation. It was agreed to revise this statement as a recommendation.
[Clerk's note: Recommendation 14:
The Panel recognised the challenges imposed on PGT provision due to the sudden change in staffing and recommends the subject to progress the re-development of PGT provision which identifies and capitalises on Glasgow's distinctive provision and expertise, and builds on interdisciplinary links across Schools and Colleges. [paragraph 1.4.3]
For action: Head of Subject]
Action: Senate Office
ASC noted that recommendation 5, in relation to student mobility, was a theme which had been identified in the reviews of Computing Science and Sociology. It was agreed that this recommendation should be revised to recommend a discussion involving the subject, RIO and the Dean of International Mobility.
Action: Senate Office
Academic Standards Committee approved the report and the revised set of recommendations.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2013/73.2.1 Celtic & Gaelic
ASC received a 12-month update report from Celtic and Gaelic in response to their Periodic Subject Review in February 2013. The Committee noted responses to each of the 12 recommendations. ASC considered that 4 of the recommendations warranted further review and requested that Celtic and Gaelic consider recommendations 1, 2, 6 and 10 again and provide a further update to ASC in 2014-15.
Dr Renaud noted the pressure on a small subject area to balance research leave for staff with learning and teaching commitments (recommendation 1) however it was felt that the subject area should reflect further on their policy to proactively plan for research-leave.
The Committee requested that the subject reflect further on the challenges posed in recommendation 6 in relation to developing and nurturing the Gaelic-speaking environment.
The Committee agreed that recommendations 2 and 10 required a further response as the action identified, in relation to assessment review and a Gaelic brochure, had not yet occurred.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2013/73.2.2 School of Engineering
The Committee received an update on the 13 recommendations established in the School of Engineering Periodic Subject Review held in January 2013. The Committee noted that the recommendations had, mainly, been given full and appropriate consideration.
The Committee considered that recommendation 1 should be sent back to the School for further consideration as the response did not adequately address the second clause of the recommendation, that the Head of College should clearly identify the benefits of TNE and other collaborations to the School. It was suggested that there was a difference in the perceived value and benefit of TNE and collaborative provision between the College and School Management Teams and other academic staff in the School. The College were encouraged to consider the Singapore Institute of Technology Year 1 Review in their response.
The Committee also agreed to seek clarification from the School in regards to recommendation 8. The University Calendar permits the duration of 60 and 90 minute exams to be increased by 30 minutes where the relevant College considers that it is justified by the nature and content of the examination. The School is asked to confirm, within six months, that College approval has been granted for the exceptions to exam duration in the School of Engineering.
Three recommendations had not been progressed in 2013-14; recommendation 6, in relation to GTA support and training, had not been taken forward and the School identified the use, allocation and training of GTAs as a 'major issue'; recommendation 7 concerning the diversity and balance within project teams; and recommendation 12 in relation to priority maintenance issues in the Rankine Building. It was agreed to request an update to all of these recommendations in six months.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2013/73.1.1 School of Physics & Astronomy
Academic Standards Committee received a further update from the School of Physics and Astronomy from their Periodic Subject Review in February 2012. The Head of College provided a response in relation to recommendation 4, that the School is provided with dedicated teaching administration. The Committee noted that a shared teaching administration between the Schools of Chemistry and Physics and Astronomy had been mooted but would not be considered further until autumn 2014. It was agreed to request a further update from the College in autumn 2014.
Action: Senate Office
Mrs Catherine Omand attended ASC to present the findings of the reflection on the second cycle of Periodic Subject Reviews and the proposals for the revised third cycle, due to be implemented in 2014-15. Mrs Omand outlined the key finding of the report:
- That confidence could be found in the underlying PSR process which met the Schools', University, Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and Scottish Funding Council (SFC) requirements
- That, broadly, the appropriate level for review had been found e.g. subjects, School. There were some anomalies to this e.g. PGT MVLS Review, and it was agreed that the Senate Office would continue to liaise with Schools to ensure the groupings remained appropriate
- That the six-year cycle of reviews was appropriate
- The level of documentation required for the PSR was significant, though had been improved by the use of SharePoint and that the University was restricted in what it could do to limit this due to QAA and SFC requirements
- That Schools found the production of the Self Evaluation Review (SER) an onerous task and that guidance for PSR3 would align more closely to ELIR3 guidance, be less prescriptive in style and format and allow Schools more discretion.
- That recommendations and commendations were more rigorously reviewed to ensure that they were evidence-based and Schools were invited to comment on the recommendations before the report was submitted to ASC
- That the Senate Office were providing greater ongoing liaison and support with Schools post-review to guide responses to recommendations and to highlight good practice identified in other PSR reports
ASC was invited to consider and approve 8 recommendations for the third cycle of PSR.
In relation to recommendation 1, regarding the level of review, Professor Edwards sought clarification on the method to identify the groupings for review. It was confirmed that the groupings were agreed post-restructuring in 2010 and were reviewed annually with Schools.
In relation to recommendation 2 regarding the Self-Evaluation Report, Professor Jenkins requested that subjects be required to submit the SER to the relevant Head of School or School Executive prior to submission to ensure that the SER accurately reflected the position within the School. ASC agreed to this addition.
Action: Senate Office
Professor Jenkins also suggested there was merit in specifying a desired length for the SER to reduce the workload on staff in compiling the document and to encourage subjects to reflect concisely. It was agreed that the revised report structure would reduce repetition and overlap. It was agreed to provide explicit guidance to subjects that the SER was intended to be a focussed, reflective analysis of the subject area not a detailed, extensive narrative and that third cycle PSR SERs should be much shorter than the average 40 pages in the second cycle; it was suggested that 15 to 20 pages would be appropriate.
Action: Senate Office
In relation to recommendation 3, the proposed front-loading of quality assurance information mirroring the ELIR Advance Information Set, committee members expressed concern at the quantity of document required. It was recognised that the management of the documentation was much improved following the introduction of SharePoint. It was agreed that the Senate Office should give further consideration to data management structures which might alleviate this burden.
Action: Senate Office
In relation to recommendation 6, ensuring the clarity of recommendations, it was suggested that recommendations could be organised depending on the intended person or office taking the action forward for ease of review.
Action: Senate Office
The Committee also made a number of more general comments on the Periodic Subject Review process.
Professor Jenkins requested that the types of recommendations which could be made through PSR were reviewed. Professor Jenkins suggested that recommendations made in relation to staffing-levels and accommodation issues were unhelpful and inappropriate as these matters of resource which were out with the scope of PSR. It was noted however that while direct resources were out with the scope of PSR, Review Panels may consider that limited or poor-quality resources were having a direct impact on the learning and teaching provision and the student experience. As noted in the PSR Report, it was agreed that PSR reports should not be used as leverage for additional resources in budgetary planning processes but that this issue should be resolved by explicit guidance to Review Panels on the appropriate wording and phrasing of recommendations with resource impacts.
Action: Senate Office
The Senate Office were asked to reflect on the consistency of PSR reports given that the number of commendations and recommendations can vary considerably between reports (with two reports in the second cycle not identifying any commendations at all). It was considered by ASC that this was unhelpful to staff within the subjects as some areas received commendation for activities or actions which were not commended in other areas. It was agreed that the number of recommendations may be tempered by the judicious use by Review Panels of 'encourage' rather than 'recommend'. The grouping of recommendations on a theme into a single recommendation was also encouraged, where possible.
Action: Senate Office
Academic Standards Committee approved the eight recommendations, subject to the comments above.
Mrs Omand confirmed that PSR Guidelines 2014-15 were being finalised and would be circulated to all Schools shortly.
Academic Standards Committee received the Year 1 Review of the School of Engineering Transnational Education collaboration with the Singapore Institute of Technology delivering the Mechanical Engineering and Mechanical Design Engineering.
The Report identified a set of recommendations for School, College and University action in relation to academic, student support, finance, human resources and university support issues. Academic Standards Committee was asked to approve University-level actions.
The report concluded that the School had benefitted from their activity in Singapore and their role in the forefront of transnational education developments at the University. It was noted that there had been challenges but that these were being overcome. Academic Standards Committee considered that there were broader lessons to be learned for future transnational education developments in relation to staffing, workload and the implications for university processes. These should be considered by the Academic Collaborations Office.
Action: Academic Collaborations Office
The Committee approved the recommendation "As there is further development of TNE, University Services need to be able to respond as required and to embed TNE processes as standard operating procedures. The local culture needs to change to ensure that all processes and procedures do not implicitly make the assumption that all students are Glasgow based. [Action: College Secretary and Secretary of Court]"
The remaining University-level action related specifically to financial procedure and Academic Standards Committee considered that this was out with the remit to approve. ASC recommended that the Year 1 Report was also submitted to Finance Committee for approval.
Action: Head of Academic and Student Administration, College of Science & Engineering
Academic Standards Committee recommended that the Year 1 Review Process was amended to make the dual-reporting structure - academic issues to Academic Standards Committee and financial issues to Finance Committee - the agreed approach for future Year 1 Reviews.
Action: Academic Collaborations Office
ASC received an update report on the Periodic Review of the Digital Design Studio at The Glasgow School of Art in May 2013. The paper provided an update on the recommendations set out in the report. ASC noted that recommendations 1 and 4 in relation to review of ILOs and reviewing recruitment strategy had been completed. Recommendations 2 and 3 in relation to greater cross-programme linkages and developing links with the graduate community across Glasgow had not been completed and would be followed up in 2014-15.
Academic Standards Committee approved the report and requested a further update on progress in 2014-15.
Action: The Glasgow School of Art
The Committee considered a paper from the School of Art outlining outstanding advisory notifications for the validation of the MSc Visualisation. ASC noted that recommendations 1, 2 and 3 had been completed however recommendations 4 and 5 were still outstanding. Recommendation 4 required the Head of Academic Programmes in the Digital Design Studio to consider the development of key communication skills in the curriculum and recommendation 5 related to tutorial and mentoring support for part-time students.
Academic Standards Committee approved the report report and requested a further update on progress in 2014-15.
Action: The Glasgow School of Art
The Committee received the report from The Glasgow School of Art Programmes Approval Group held on 30 April 2014. ASC approved:
- The validation of the joint programme - MLitt Curatorial Practice (Contemporary Art) for a six year period commencing academic session 2014-15.
- The amendment to the MLitt Fine Art Practice to add one new pathway (Drawing) and two pathway title changes: (Printmaking to Print Media) and (Photography to Photography and the Moving Image) ASC also noted the approval of a Certificate of Higher Education: Continuing Education by The Glasgow School of Art Academic Council. As this programme was sub-degree level ASC approval was not required.
Dr Alastair Payne, Acting Head of the School of Fine Art, presented the proposed amendments to the PGT Generic Regulations for programmes delivered by The Glasgow School of Art. The paper proposed:
- Requirements for the award of Masters Degree and rules for the award of Merit and Distinction would be determined only by the grade achieved in the dissertation or "other substantial piece of work" and not be calculated using the GPA from the taught courses. The changes would apply to the Schools of Design and Fine Art.
- Progress to the dissertation/other substantial piece of work should only be permitted where the student had met the requirement of the award of a PgDip - a GPA of 9 (equivalent to D) in 120 credits, with not less than 80 of these credits at Grade D or above and all credits at Grade F or above. Currently, the requirement for progress to dissertation was a GPA of C3 in taught courses, with at least 75% of credits at D3 and all credits at F or above. This change would apply to all Master programmes.
- There are no proposed changes to the current regulations in relation to reassessment. The paper states that GSA does not believe there is any conflict in lowering the progression threshold for Masters but keeping the current reassessment opportunity available to students. ASC noted that this was in conflict with the Code of Assessment where thresholds for reassessment are aligned with progress thresholds.
- There are no proposed changes to the current regulations in relation to the award of PGCert or PgDip.
Dr Payne explained that the programmes in the Schools of Design and Fine Art encouraged students to experiment and take risks in the initial (taught) stages of their Masters degree and to deconstruct their ideas of learning. It was felt, therefore, that calculating their overall degree classification based on these grades was unfair to students and would discourage them from experimenting. Dr Payne also explained that the Degree Show, considered to be the 'substantial piece of work', which GSA students undertook was the culmination of the learning process throughout the masters programme as it included demonstration of a broad range of skills; creation of a piece of independent work, organisation of the show and presentation to an external audience.
The Committee expressed two main concerns; the setting of precedent and maintaining the principles of fairness.
Professor Edwards and Professor Jenkins expressed concern that University of Glasgow masters programmes could equally claim that the initial stages of the master programmes required a deconstruction of previous learning and were a significant learning curve - particularly for international students - and that poor grades in the initial phases could disadvantage them in the overall classification. The Convener suggested that the GSA programmes structure - building of knowledge and culmination in the Degree Show - was distinct from the University of Glasgow model and so the setting of precedent would be limited.
Concern was also raised that students who performed well in the first 120 credits but poorly in the final piece of work could feel disadvantaged in comparison to students who had performed poorly in the initial stages but achieved a high grade for the substantial piece of work. Dr Vezza and Professor Jenkins suggested that the assessment methods for the initial 120 credits could be adapted to assess the quality of the process rather than the quality of the outcome - thereby permitting experimentation and risk-taking without negatively impacting on the grade. It was considered that this would allow the classification to be calculated based on all components of the masters programmes. Dr Payne reported that the model proposed by GSA was a common and successful model in place at other comparable institutions.
Academic Standards Committee approved proposal one, to permit the classification of the GSA Masters awards in the Schools of Design and Fine Art based on the final project.
The Committee considered the proposal to reduce the requirement for progression to Masters. It was not considered that The Glasgow School of Art had made a compelling case for reducing these requirements.
Academic Standards Committee rejected proposal two.
As proposals three and four were related to proposal two, these were not discussed by the Committee.
Action: Academic Collaborations Office, Senate Office, The Glasgow School of Art
Academic Standards Committee received a request from Scotland's Rural College to postpone the institution-led subject review of Environmental Sciences from 2013-14 to 2014-15 in recognition of the significant workload experienced in 2013-14 due to the merger and creation of Scotland's Rural College, the institutional ELIR review and an FE Review. ASC noted that the University of Edinburgh also validated degrees provided by Environmental Sciences and it was confirmed that approval of the postponement was also being sought from the University of Edinburgh.
Academic Standards Committee approved the postponement of the review to 2014-15, subject to the requirement that University of Edinburgh also approved.
Action: Academic Collaborations Office
The Committee received the Report for the Review of Programmes in the Applied Science and Technology Subject Group in Scotland's Rural College (SRUC) and was invited to approve three recommendations. ASC noted the range of advisory recommendations from the Panel and four conditions of validation. ASC noted that the conditions were required to be met prior to the commencement of session 2014-15.
ASC approved the re-validation of three programmes (BSc Hons Applied Animal Science, BSc Hons Applied Bioscience and BSc Hons Green Technology), approved the amendment of a programme title to BSc Agricultural Bioscience and approved the withdrawal of BSc Agricultural Science.
The Clerk of Senate reported that SRUC had recently announced the exploration of a closer degree of collaboration with the University of Edinburgh which might lead to the merger of the two institutions. It was noted that such a development would have an impact on the University of Glasgow's validation arrangement and research collaborations. The University was meeting with SRUC and would monitor this development closely.
Friday 3 October 2014
Friday 14 November 2014
Friday 13 February 2015
Tuesday 14 April 2015 (Good Friday - 3 April 2015)
Friday 22 May 2015
The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 3 October 2014.
Created by: Mr Gavin Lee