University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Revised Minute of Meeting held on Friday 13 February 2015 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room
Ms Helen Butcher (vice Dr Jack Aitken), Mr Cal Davies, Professor Christine Edwards, Professor Tom Guthrie (Convener), Mr Fred Hay (vice Mr John Marsh), Professor Bob Hill, Dr Martin Macauley, Professor Douglas Macgregor, Ms Dawn McKenzie, Professor Kevin O'Dell, Dr Allison Orr, Dr Bryony Randall.
In Attendance:Ms Lesley Fielding, Dr Robert Doherty (for item ASC/2014/37.5), Ms Wendy Muir (for item ASC/2014/40)
Apologies:Professor John Briggs, Dr Gordon Curry, Professor Neil Evans, Mr Matthew Hastings, Dr Charlotte Methuen, Dr Anna Morgan-Thomas, Dr Anna O'Neill, Ms Anna Phelan, Ms Joanne Ramsey, Dr Helen Stoddart.
The minutes of the previous meeting of 14 November 2014 were approved as a correct record.
The members considered an additional report provided by Professor Evans which proposed that preponderance be permitted as independent selection criteria for the zone of discretion. Members noted that this proposal was the result of an individual case within MVLS. Accordingly, ASC considered that amendment of the preponderance rule was not feasible and recommended the College should undertake a review of current grading practices.
Action: Neil Evans
ASC considered the supplementary report on Good Cause and PIP from the College of Social Sciences. As the issue of Good Cause was being deliberated currently by ARSC it was agreed that no further action was required. With regard to PIP, the summary report identified the system as being overly complex and prescriptive. ASC agreed that this issue should be included in the review of the Course Approval System.
Action: Senate Office
ASC received an update from Mr Hastings regarding the scheduling of exams in the December diet for visiting students who were here for semester one only and had selected courses where the final exam was held inl the April/May diet. The three options suggested were:
- Schools to reduce the choices available to visiting students whereby they could only select modules examined in Semester 1.
- The Registry would assume responsibility for scheduling School exams as a manual process, though the practicability of this was not clear.
- The Schools would assume responsibility for scheduling School exams as a manual process, though this would have resource implications for schools.
Neither option was without drawbacks and would require further deliberation. Mr Hastings would meet with staff from the College of Science and Engineering to discuss issues which arose from the December exam diet. Mr Hastings also planned to meet with staff from Student Lifecycle Support and Development (SLSD) to discuss the technical problems presented by those visiting students who took courses taught and examined in Semesters 1 but which MyCampus recorded as April/May examinations.
ASC noted that there was some confusion regarding the availability of course codes for those visiting students attending for Semester 1 only, however, Ms McKenzie advised ASC that exit codes were available for such programmes. Mr Hastings should be requested to provide an update on his consultations at the April meeting of ASC.
Action: Matthew Hastings
In advance of a meeting to review this on Monday 16th February, the Convener provided members with an update on the pilot which used MyCampus for Good Cause submission for examinations. Although some technical issues in uploading and accessing data by students had been identified, generally it was considered that the utilisation of MyCampus in processing claims for good cause was more efficient. It was anticipated that once the technical issues had been resolved the pilot would be rolled out to other areas of the University.
ASC received a report from the PACWG on the review of Levels of Approval in Course Specifications. Whilst it was considered that some fields were too important to bypass College scrutiny, seven fields were identified that could be classified as minor fields, requiring School approval only. These fields were:
- Location [9]
- Timetable [20]
- Available to Erasmus students [23]
- Open Studies credit bearing [25]
- Represents work placement or period of study abroad [26]
- Formative Assessment [31]
- Additional Relevant Information [35].
ASC approved the recommendation.
Action: Clerk of PCAWG
ASC also noted the following from the report:
- Further to a request for the Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) headings to be reviewed, the current programme specifications' division into knowledge, skills and transferrable skills would be removed. The instruction text within the specification, and the guidance notes on completing programme specifications, would be amended in summer 2015;
- The development of PIP to permit the submission and approval of proposals a year or more before their proposed start date;
- The introduction of the use of web links, rather than documents, for course handbook information held on PIP, subject to Schools uploading either a document or web link, but not both.
The Convener of ASC requested that Senate Office should coordinate the provision of further guidance on the ILOs.
Action: Senate Office
ASC confirmed approval of the following new programme which had been proposed by the College of Arts, and which had now met the conditions set out by the PAG.
MLitt Fantasy
This new award would be introduced in 2015-16.
ASC confirmed approval of the following new programme which had been proposed by the College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences and which had now met the conditions set out by the PAG.
MSc Immunology & Inflammatory Disease
This new award would be introduced in 2015-16
ASC received a summary from the Senate Office which identified the key issues which had been raised in the College Annual Monitoring Summaries (CAMS) for 2013-14.
Further to the previous report and subsequent amendments made to the Annual Monitoring process for Session 2013-14 all UG College Annual Monitoring Summaries were submitted in time for the November meeting of ASC and three of four of the PGT College Annual Monitoring Summaries were received in time for inclusion in the overview, with the exception of College of Science and Engineering which was presented to the meeting for discussion.
The overview identified the benefits of the revised process, which saw the introduction of a more discussion/meeting based approach to monitoring at School level and the radical simplification of the proformas, were evidenced by the improved level of reflection on provision. The revised process allowed for staff to systematically identify potential improvements for the enhancement of the student experience. The Summaries also requested examples of good practice and recorded progress being made on actions identified in previous years.
As had been previously noted by ASC, the issues discussed at previous meetings of ASC had been referred to Education Policy and Strategy Committee (EdPSC) and the following is a summary of the findings:
- Accommodation for learning and teaching had been an area where constraints and challenges were consistently raised in all reports. ASC was advised that several streams of activity were already in place to increase the availability of large spaces and improve the allocation of rooms. Further to this, other measures that had been proposed included space modelling, early prediction of student numbers and early room bookings and increasing the spread of timetabling.
- Technology was another significant theme of the issues raised focussing on usability, reliability, training and support for Learning and Teaching related technologies. EdPSC had identified the need for a different style of support to be introduced. The linking of the respective roles of the Learning Technology Unit and IT Services would be key to fully supporting Moodle. The members noted that the issues with Moodle had been flagged to the Head of University Services.
- Staffing levels for both teaching and administration had been raised, particularly in relation to the recent focus in preparation for the Research Excellence Framework (REF), on appointments made on the basis of staff research portfolios to the detriment of subject expertise. EdPSC acknowledged this and the need for the culture of valuing teaching to be reasserted through recruitment, recognition and reward and promotion.
In terms of the PG CAMS, ASC noted the following themes which had been identified and agreed that these should be also be drawn to the attention of EdPSC. There was some correlation to those raised in the UG CAMS regarding technology, teaching accommodation and MyCampus. However, the most numerous concerns were:
- Staffing - particularly concerns that the effort involved in providing support to PGT students was not accurately reflected in workload models and that administrative support was stretched to the point of breaking
- Recruitment - a number of requests for advice or further input from Recruitment and International office were made in relation to marketing, improving recruitment to programmes and increasing the diversity in student recruitment.
- Support for learning - it was noted that PGT students had required or requested support with academic writing. A number of areas had developed their own solutions in response; these could be a useful basis for developing practice in other areas across the University, as similar needs are identified in the future.
The summary paper also identified issues which required the attention of the University and these would be forwarded to the appropriate offices with responses and updates to be reported back to ASC in the future.
ASC discussed the recurring themes of MyCampus and accommodation and considered that a number of the issues were procedural and therefore it was important that staff were reminded of the mechanisms for reporting faults. With regard to future reporting, ASC considered that, as the reporting mechanism was fairly new, it would be useful for Schools and subjects to report their experiences of these processes and agreed this should be included in the Annual Monitoring Summaries for next year as a hot topic.
Action: Senate Office
With regard to the Learning & Teaching Hub, Professor Coton flagged to ASC the need to rethink the support model for teaching space and the importance of this support to be proactive and not reactive.
ASC learned of the difficulties experienced by the School of Engineering in accessing generic timetables on MyCampus, and noted Ms McKenzie's response that MyCampus was designed to produce individual timetables and that CMIS was the appropriate system to access generic timetables.
ASC considered the items reported for University attention in Appendix 1 and made the following amendments:
- Where there was a reference to both CMIS and MyCampus in the same point these should be disaggregated and directed as appropriate.
Action: Senate Office
- Film & TV Studies: issue regarding staff perception that external examiners' fees were embarrassingly low. ASC noted that, with regard to the external examiner fee review, a full review process had been undertaken and approved by Senior Management Group, hence no further action was necessary.
- GTA Training/pay: This had been referred to the Deans of Graduate School and Deans of Learning & Teaching to discuss. An update should be requested on the progress made.
Action: Senate Office
- Teaching Space (Allocation) and (Availability): Professor Coton advised that a group had been assembled to look at space for class tests and had reported through Learning and Teaching Committee, EdPSC and Senate. The response should be changed to provide relevant link to the outcome of that group.
Action: Senate Office
Each of the reports submitted to the current meeting was considered further as detailed below.
As Dr Stoddart, the College Quality Officer for Arts, was unable to attend the meeting, she provided a commentary and the key issues were:
- Level of engagement
- Workload and Staffing.
- MyCampus
- Language proficiency of international students
- There were concerns regarding current PGT degree classification regulations and the impact on those students who performed less well in early assignments but who then gradually improved and produced a distinguished dissertation but were effectively prevented from securing a distinction. The subject area requested that 'students might qualify for consideration in the zone of discretion based on the calculation of the average of both coursework and the dissertation.' ASC agreed that ARSC should be asked to respond to this issue.
Action: Senate Office
With regard to the Workload and staffing issue, it was considered these were issues for the College and that feedback should be provided next year on management of work placements.
Action: Clerk
Professor Edwards reported on the PG report and advised of a continuing imbalance in the level of information provided by the different programmes in the AMS. She highlighted the success of the Medical Genetics programme in winning the UK-wide Prospects Postgraduate Wards 2014 "Best Teaching Team (Science Engineering & Technology)" award.
An example of Good Practice was the grouping of the PGT programmes into five clusters based on themes and potential for shared teaching. The first cluster (Biomedical Sciences) had been established which provided more choice and easier organisation and had been well received by students.
She highlighted a concern regarding transport networks for students travelling to the South Glasgow University Hospital, particularly with regard to provision for early morning and late evening travel. ASC considered that this issue should be addressed at University level, being a matter which had previously been raised in connection with the Garscube Campus.
Dr Macauley reported on the CAMS for his College. He highlighted a number of issues pertaining to overseas students including diversity of individual backgrounds, level of subject knowledge and language proficiency all of which posed a substantial challenge to staff. Members learned that Professor John Davies, Dean of Learning and Teaching for Engineering was in the process of reviewing this issue and hence no further action was required.
Issues connected to the practical and academic aspects of those MSc programmes with a January intake of PGT students were identified. The majority of these programmes were offered by the School of Engineering and, as outlined in the AMS, were perceived as a useful marketing tool for recruitment. However, the academic construction of these courses gave rise to concern as January intake students commenced with semester 2 classes, then undertook the project and finished with semester 1 classes. ASC concurred that the concerns regarding academic construction were valid and agreed with Professor Coton's proposal that the performances of the January and September cohorts should be examined and compared in the first instance. ASC agreed that Dr Macauley should undertake this exercise for the School of Engineering and report back to ASC
Action: Martin Macauley
Dr Macauley advised ASC that the School Quality Officers' appreciated Professor Coton's attendance at the Quality Officer Forum which afforded them the opportunity to receive updates and the reassurance that their concerns were being considered.
Dr Doherty reported on the CAMS for his College. He advised that the level of response across the College had been good overall but that there was still scope for further development. A frequent topic of concern across the College was that of the English language capabilities of overseas students, together with high numbers of PGT students. Dr Doherty highlighted the request from the Adam Smith Business School students for an internet-based booking system for the library study room. Ms Phelan advised members that a pilot scheme was under development.
The transfer to Moodle V2 was perceived as cumbersome and time consuming and that future transitions should have improved consultations. Professor Coton advised ASC that the timescale for the migration to Moodle V2 had provided a window of one year and had been flagged to Schools through the main committees in advance of the transition. He advised that a number of schools had built time into workloads for this process and that a language translation period had been allowed. In addition, ASC noted that the rollover process had permitted the removal of redundant material and offered Schools flexibility to move to the new system at a convenient time.
The ongoing Issues with MyCampus in relation to student registration and enrolment were noted. Professor Coton commented that there were some indications that the system was working well for the University. In addressing the negative comments, he considered that it was important for the University to determine what the actual problems were as some could be addressed by the provision of further training and by the improved dissemination of information about the benefits of the system to local areas.
Professor Hill presented the report from ARSC which presented one issue for consideration.
Translation of Grades from Study Abroad
ARSC had considered the draft paper entitled Translation of Grades from Study Abroad which was produced further to the consultation exercise carried out by Professor Jim Murdoch, International Dean: Mobility. ARSC considered that there was substantial inconsistency in the application of the good practice regulations as contained within the Code of Assessment and that there was a clear need for a change of guidance. ARSC had determined that the following principles needed to be clear in the guidance:
- That all study undertaken in the year abroad should count as part of the student's overall degree curriculum. It was important that a clear written trail was kept to show what had been agreed and any subsequent amendments.
- That where a student experienced adverse circumstances (good cause) or wished to challenge academic outcomes (through appeal) these issues needed to be taken up with the host university, rather than expecting Glasgow to make adjustments on their return.
Professor Hill noted that these principles could be difficult to apply, and highlighted the requirement that students should be informed of how their grades are translated prior to their departure, as an example. It was acknowledged by ASC that this would be challenging.
It was noted that the Code of Assessment required College Deans of Learning & Teaching to have an overview of study abroad and the translation process, however, ARSC observed that arrangements tended, increasingly, to be worked out at subject level but considered that, as mobility grew, it was increasingly important for an overview of grade conversion to be taken at College level.
Professor Guthrie noted that there were a number of separate issues to be considered within the document and it was important to differentiate between policy and actual practice. Therefore in order to reassess policy issues, ASC agreed to the formation of a Short Life Working Group (SLWG) to determine future policy. The SLWG would be composed of Professor Guthrie, Professor Murdoch, Professor Hill, a College Study Abroad Coordinator; Learning Teaching Committee representative; Student Representative Council representative and, possibly, the International Student Officer. The Clerk would be from the Senate Office. If possible, an update report on the progress of the SLWG should be submitted to the April meeting.
Action: Senate Office
External Examiner Comments 2013-14
ASC noted ARSC's consideration of external examiner comments 2013-14 (undergraduate) regarding assessment/regulatory issues
Use of A Grades in Marking
ASC noted ARSC's consideration of the recommendations made by the SLWG that steps should be taken to identify ways in which staff could be encouraged to use the full range of A grade bands. ARSC considered that there was ample information to encourage the use of the A grade within the Code of Assessment. However, it would be helpful if the document 'Understanding the marking scheme - a guide for students' which was available on the Senate office website, was referred to within the Guide, noting the ways in which an excellent performance might be characterised and using these to distinguish between the different levels of A band performances. ASC concurred with the ARSC proposal and agreed that the Senate Office should coordinate production of a short document to highlight the importance of using A grades, where appropriate.
Action: Senate Office
Good Cause and Manifest Prejudice: Issue arising from an appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee
ASC noted that the Adam Smith Business School had requested an opportunity to present more detailed information on the difficulties of assessing manifest prejudice for students in years 1 and 2 of an undergraduate degree programme. This would be considered at the next ARSC meeting and subsequently reported to ASC.
Action: Clerk
ASC/2014/39.1.1 Open Studies
ASC received the 12-month update report from the review of Open Studies which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. The Committee noted responses to each of the 17 recommendations. ASC considered that seven of the recommendations warranted further review as outlined below:
Updates required for the May meeting of ASC:
- Recommendation 2: identifying the best mechanism to ensure effective scrutiny and approval of its provision at the College level, possible establishment of short courses or modular board of studies.
- Recommendation 4: identification of a replacement Art Room.
- Recommendation 5: progress on implementation of a revised strategy for the Centre for session 2015-16.
Updates required for the October meeting of ASC:
- Recommendation 6: progress of the Centre's plans to implement an off-the-shelf online enrolment system for session 2015-16.
- Recommendation 7: reconstitution of the Strategy Advisory Group.
- Recommendation 15: reconfiguration of existing GTA accommodation.
- Recommendation 17: relocation of to the main campus of the University.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2014/39.2.1 Politics
ASC received the 12-month update report from the review of Politics which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. The Convener and the ASC reviewer, Professor O'Dell, considered that the recommendations had, mainly, been given full and appropriate consideration. However, the Convener, Professor Coton, expressed his concerns regarding Recommendation 3. He considered that the issue of teaching space was a serious problem and should be monitored. It was agreed that updates on further progress should be provided to ASC in October 2015 for the following recommendations:
- Recommendation 3 - further clarification of the Head of Subject's statement that '...our space issues remain and if anything have become more problematic.'
- Recommendation 9 - advances made in reducing tutorial sizes
- Recommendation 10 - the performance of IT systems in relation to online marking for session 2014-15.
- Recommendations 14 and 15 - progress on GTA feedback and resources.
ASC/2014/39.4 School of Engineering (Reserved Business)
This item is reserved to members of the committee and will be emailed out separately.
Ms Muir, Head of Academic Collaboration Office, introduced a paper which set out the University's draft response to the QAA statement which proposed that the Qualification Characteristics Statements that had been introduced for foundation, masters and doctoral degrees, be extended to Qualifications Awarded by Two or More Degree-Awarding Bodies. Ms Muir was a member of an advisory group advising QAA on the paper.
The consultation document had been distributed to College Deans (L&T and Graduate Studies), College HASA's, College Graduate School Administrators, Senate Office, Academic Collaborations Office and staff with direct experience of developing or operating joint or double degree arrangements. Ten responses were received. Ms Muir highlighted that, whilst the detailed guidance within the document was welcomed, it was considered that the form of a 'qualifications characteristics statement' was not the right vehicle for the guidance. It was noted that there was no reference in the statement to the characteristics of any qualifications, however they may be awarded, but rather to arrangements for their development, delivery and award in partnership with another degree awarding body.
It was highlighted that if a joint Masters qualification with another university was being award then it would be the characteristics statement for a Masters qualification and the relevant descriptor within the SCQF that would be relevant. In order to make a joint award, specific arrangements and considerations need to be made for its development, delivery and award in partnership with that other university.
The Advisory Group considered that the individual characteristic statements were good, however, the nature, title and aims of the document as well as some of the terminology used throughout needed to take account of these distinctions (i.e. there are no qualifications characteristics) and be made consistent. The Advisory Group suggested alternatives for the title and aims.
ASC agreed with the draft response that the document did not set out the characteristics of degrees but instead the arrangements by which the award was made. Additionally, whilst the guidance was helpful, the title did not achieve the key aims and would require to be changed. Professor Guthrie noted that these were not substantive issues, but would require additional guidance.
Professor Coton expressed his thanks to Ms Muir, on behalf of ASC, for this comprehensive response.
ASC noted the consultation document and endorsed the University's draft response. ASC also noted that the draft response may be subject to come minor amendments post 13 February.
ASC noted the paper which outlined the reason for the delay and the revised format for the Year 1 Review of the University of Glasgow Singapore Aerospace programmes. The review was delayed due to the uncertain future of these programmes, however, whilst subject to confirmation, the new programmes leading to joint awards with SIT should commence in 2018. As a Year 1 review for mechanical programmes was held in June 2013, it was proposed that the first review of the aerospace programmes should take the following format:
- The Self Evaluation Report would be used as a starting point for the mechanical engineering programmes with clear indication of any changes in all engineering programmes since the document was written
- New material would be added on topics including
- Performance of graduating students
- Graduation ceremony
- Procedures and outcomes for final year individual projects
- QA procedures, including student feedback
- Progress on the action plan from the first year review would be addressed at the same time, given the commonality between the activities.
ASC approved the proposed approach and requested an update at the October meeting.
Action: Clerk