University of Glasgow

Academic Standards Committee

Minute of Meeting held on Friday 17 April 2015 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room

Present:

Dr Jack Aitken, Professor John Briggs, Ms Helen Butcher, Mr Cal Davies, Professor Christine Edwards, Professor Neil Evans, Professor Tom Guthrie (Convener), Mr Matthew Hastings, Mr Fred Hay (vice Mr John Marsh), Professor Bob Hill, Dr Martin Macauley, Professor Kevin O'Dell, Dr Allison Orr, Ms Anna Phelan, Dr Bryony Randall, Dr Helen Stoddart.  

In Attendance:

Ms Lesley Fielding.

Apologies:

Dr Gordon Curry, Professor Douglas Macgregor, Ms Dawn McKenzie, Dr Charlotte Methuen, Dr Anna Morgan-Thomas, Dr Anna O'Neill, Ms Joanne Ramsey.  

 
ASC/2014/45 Minutes of the Meeting held on Friday 13 February 2015 

The Committee noted that there was one amendment to the minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2015.

ASC 2014/34.3 Report from the Meeting of Academic Regulations sub-Committee held on 21 October 2014

Amend second bullet point "The Registry would assume responsibility for scheduling School exams as a manual process, though the practicability of this was not clear" and add further bullet point:

"The Schools would assume responsibility for scheduling School exams as a manual process, though this would have resource implications for schools".

The minutes were accepted, with amendment, to be an accurate reflection of the meeting held on 13 February 2015.

ASC/2014/46 Matters Arising 

 

ASC/2014/46.1 PGT College Annual Monitoring Summaries for 2013-14: College of Science & Engineering (ASC/2014/37.4) 

Further to the agreement that the performances of the January and September cohorts should be examined, Dr Macauley reported to the Committee that the analysed data spanning three years produced no obvious difference between the cohorts.

Dr Macauley advised the Committee that an issue of concern was the view, expressed by students in the January cohort, that the University appeared to be unprepared for their arrival in January. ASC agreed that this issue should be drawn to the attention of the Recruitment and International Office (RIO) with the request that closer attention be paid to preparations for the arrival of this cohort of students.

Action: Clerk

ASC/2014/46.2 Report from the Meeting of Academic Regulations Sub-Committee held on 9 December 2014 (ASC/2014/38) 

ASC noted that the Short Life Working Group on Translation of Grades from Study Abroad had been scheduled to meet on 23 April 2015, however, it was now necessary to rearrange this meeting. 

ASC/2014/46.3 University of Glasgow Singapore Year 1 Review of Aerospace Programmes (ASC/2014/41) 

An update had been provided by Professor John Davies to advise ASC that the proposed Year 1 Review of Aerospace Programmes would most likely be held in the first week of the Overseas Immersion Programme (starting June 22 2015) when students would be in Glasgow. Subsequently, a report would be submitted to the October meeting of ASC. 

ASC/2014/46.4 Meeting of Deans of Graduate Studies and Learning & Teaching re. GTAs - Update 

ASC noted that the meeting of Deans of Graduate Studies and Learning and Teaching was held on 8 April and that an update on the meeting would be submitted to the May meeting of ASC.

Action: Clerk

ASC/2014/47 Convener's Business 

There were no items of Convener's business. 

ASC/2014/48 Annual Report on External Examiners Reports Session 2013-14 

ASC received the report and noted that 93% of reports had been submitted in time for the collation of the report. The report highlighted the most common issues raised in external examiner reports which required a response from Schools (13% of reports) including 43 comments in relation to marking and the marking scheme and 21 comments in relation to assessment and feedback. Whilst the number of comments on marking and the marking scheme were similar to session 2012-13, the comments on assessment had decreased from 33.  

ASC/2014/49 Programme Approval 

 

ASC/2014/49.1 Review of Course and Programme Approval Process 

Dr Aitken spoke to the draft report of the review of the course and programme approval process. Members noted that the last review of the course and programme approval process was conducted in 2006. The aim of the current review was to support curriculum development, streamline the process, devolve authority and pilot changes. At the same time, any new system would have to be robust and ensure that proper quality assurance was in place. It was conducted through interviews with staff across the University and also compared processes utilised by other Russell Group institutions.

Both formal and informal feedback throughout the university indicated that the current system was overly complicated, and time-consuming. Additionally, there were also concerns with regard to the supporting IT system PIP (Programme Information Process). Research revealed that the majority of the other Russell Group universities utilised a one-stage process.

In order to address these concerns, the paper proposed that the University should move to a one stage process and that Programme Approval should be devolved to College Board of Studies. To ensure academic standards were maintained, safeguards would be established such as the requirement that Board of Studies' membership included PAG (Programme Approval Group) or ASC members to ensure there was continuity in terms of experience. The Senate Office would audit and report annually on approval activity by Boards of Studies. These new powers would be piloted in 2016-17 with full implementation in 2017-18. In the interim, College Boards of studies would, in 2015-16 have power to approve changes and PAGs would no longer have to submit recommendations to ASC

In relation to course approval, from 2016-17 Schools and Research Institutes would assume responsibility for this process which should address the bottlenecks that can occur at Board of Studies due to the high level of course approval activity. Membership of Boards of Studies would have to be strengthened by addition of 'external' members. Boards of Studies would undertake annual audits and report to ASC on course approval activity. In 2015-16, School/Research Institutes would be able to approve course changes and withdrawals.

Dr Aitken then addressed a number of information issues that had arisen during consultations. Currently, the format of the Specifications foregrounded the technical data rather than more student-related information. The reformatting of these, to place a course/programme description, aims and outcomes at the start, would result in a format that would be more appealing and accessible to students and foreground pedagogic matters better. With regard to the support of the new system, whilst the current PIP support from IT was excellent, there were issues related to a Word-based system with extensive cutting and pasting between proposal documents and the level of sensitivity of the system.

The issue of the interface between PIP and MyCampus was also addressed with the review advising that consideration should be given to extending the functionality of MyCampus to support the course and programme approval process. Members considered that, with regard to MyCampus, it would be important to identify the advantages of using the system in advance. Regardless of whether this was approved, in the interim, PIP would require to be updated in order for the system to facilitate the proposed process changes. Additionally, the governance structure for PIP should be reviewed, possibly establishing a Steering Group and Good Practice and online general users' Fora. It was also proposed that the pilot would be rolled out across the entire University as opposed to selected areas only to avoid the scenario whereby two versions of PIP were in operation.

Members noted the details of the report and sought clarification on some issues. Professor Edwards enquired how the process would operate with regard to shared courses and would safeguards be incorporated to the system to ensure that there was appropriate dissemination of information. Dr Aitken advised that it would be necessary to consider this carefully in designing the guidance. Members agreed that detailed guidance would be essential to ensure that the correct procedures were followed and that particular attention should be paid to the phrasing of such guidance. This would apply, particularly, to issues such as membership of Board of Studies where externality should be a mandatory element of the process and to ensure that reporting mechanisms were robust. Dr Aitken emphasised that this would be addressed by regular audit reports to ASC.

Issues raised which could require further consideration included:

  • What would happen with regard to course and programme specifications in the old format
  • The role of PSR in the process
  • Consideration of existing process and programmes

The Convener noted that the issues raised by PAGs pertaining to course and programme approval were mainly minor.

ASC was satisfied with the recommendations of the review of programme approval and endorsed the report for onward transmission to EdPSC.

ASC/2014/49.2 Reports from Semester 2 Programme Approval Groups 

ASC/2014/9.2.1 College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences

ASC noted the report of the PAG's consideration of 14 proposals for major changes or new programmes in both undergraduate and taught postgraduate provision in the College of MVLS. The PAG Convener, Dr Hill, reported that, overall, the programme specifications were very good. 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.

ASC approved the following proposals for introduction in 2015-16:

MSc Biomedical Sciences - New

MSc Brain Sciences - New

MSc Genetic & Genomic Counselling / MSc Clinical Genetics - New

PgCert/PgDip/MSc Health Professions Education - New

MSc Health Professions Education (with Research) - New

MSc Translational Medical Sciences (with specialisms: Diagnostics / Molecular / Medicine / Molecular Pathology / Surgical Oncology) - New

PgCert/PgDip/MSc Wildlife & Livestock Management - New

PgCert Human Anatomy - New

PgCert Leading, Improving & Transforming Care - New

PgCert Spiritual & Religious Care in Health & Social Care - New

MRes Biomedical Sciences (with associated specialisms) - Major Change

MSc Cardiovascular Sciences - Major Change

MSc Diabetes - Major Change

MSc Health Technology Assessment - 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.

[Clerk's Note: It was noted after the meeting of ASC that the MSc in Genetic and Genomic Counselling would be governed by non-generic and not generic regulations as stated. The new regulations will be drafted by the Senate Office]

ASC/2014/9.2.2 College of Science & Engineering

ASC noted the report on the PAG's consideration of nine proposals for major changes or new programmes in both undergraduate and postgraduate provision in the College of Science and Engineering. The report sought ASC's comment on the proposed increase in requirements for progression to the work placement (an overall GPA of B3 or better, with no course below C3, at first attempt). After due consideration, ASC was content to permit an exception in this instance.

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 the next meeting in May. 

ASC/2014/9.2.3 College of Social Sciences

ASC noted the report on the PAG's consideration of seven proposals for new programmes in undergraduate and taught postgraduate provision.

Professor Edwards noted that whilst the postgraduate proposals had been satisfactory, the undergraduate proposals were not sufficiently developed when they were submitted to the PAG.

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/2014/50 Update on Pilot for Submitting Good Cause Claims on MyCampus 

ASC received and noted the above report. The report advised that feedback had indicated that the pilot for submitting student Good Cause Claims on MyCampus had worked well. Further to some minor alternations the pilot would continue for the remainder of session 2014-15 with a full roll-out planned for session 2015-16. A full roll-out would require all students to submit good cause claims on MyCampus, with paper claims no longer being accepted.  

ASC/2014/51 Treatment of Absence with Good Cause from Honours Assessments 

ASC considered the paper by Professor Davies which outlined the concerns regarding absences from examinations for "Good Cause" where the School had doubts about the validity of the supporting evidence. Currently, the two acceptable documents to prove "Good Cause" were a note from an independent responsible person who could vouch for the absence and the submission of a medical note.

The paper proposed two possible solutions:

  • The person providing the supporting evidence is required to complete a form that makes the impact of the author's statement clear;
  • A student who misses an examination because of mitigating circumstances when there is normally no resit is required to sit a substitute examination rather than having the missing assessment discounted.

Members considered that the proposed changes would not necessarily address the problem and that no system could entirely safeguard against abuse of processes. Further to this, it was noted that any review of the Student Absence System would require consistency in approach as regulations could not be amended solely for the Singapore campus. ASC concurred that the current Student Absence System was robust and that, in view of the small numbers of students involved, no amendments were required at this stage.

ASC/2014/52 Update on Degree Classification 

Ms Butcher provided ASC with an update on the issue of degree classification. Whilst there had been agreement that schools should continue to monitor degree classification, no future course of action had been identified. The issue was a pertinent one as was reflected in the number of external examiner comments alluding to this matter within the Annual External Examiners Report 2013-14. Accordingly, further to a meeting with the Dean of Learning and Teaching (Social Sciences) the need for more detailed analysis of course assessment at an earlier stage had been identified. Members discussed the issues pertaining to degree classification and Mr Hay stated that caution should be exercised when dealing with this matter, particularly in relation to comparing data with other Russell Group universities. Professor Briggs advised members that it was important that this matter was addressed as the statistics revealed a mismatch of degree classification with the standard of students accepted by the University. Professor Briggs added that this was a critical issue for the University in ensuring fairness to students and the possible impact on future recruitment.

Professor Guthrie noted that the statistics suggested that there was likely to be variation in marking among staff across the University which raised concerns regarding the consistency of understanding and implementation of the grading scale. In order to ensure there was sufficient understanding and implementation of the grading scale throughout the University, it was essential that the marking scale was communicated effectively to all members of academic staff and that a shared understanding of its meaning was developed.

Members considered it would be useful for a brief document to be prepared as a reminder to staff on the marking scale. This should, in particular, emphasise that performance was to be judged against the level of study which the candidate had reached, emphasise the need to use the entirety of the scale and clarify when a grade A should be awarded (with particular emphasis on grade A1). ASC agreed that an abbreviated paper on the Code of Assessment should be prepared and circulated to all Heads of Schools for discussion at staff and L&T meetings.

Action: Senate Office

ASC/2014/53 Visiting Student Examination Scheduling in Semester 1 

 Mr Hastings spoke to the paper on Visiting Student Examination Scheduling Semester 1 and outlined the difficulties experienced in scheduling visiting students' outwith the April/May examination schedule. In order to address these difficulties, Mr Hastings proposed three options:

  1. Schools create visiting student codes with an examination scheduled for the December examination diet (already the practice in the School of Life Sciences).
  2. Where a course is taught in Semester 1 but not examined until April/May, Schools consider moving the exam for all students on the course to December (current practice in the School of Accounting and Finance).
  3. Schools limit the choice of courses to which visiting students are allowed to enrol to those which are examined in the December examination diet (current practice in some Schools in the College of Arts).

Whilst all options were practised across the Schools, it was noted that all options had advantages and disadvantages, as in Option 3 which would have implications both for RIO with regard to recruitment and for relationships with partner institutions.

Members discussed the implications of the creation of new courses for visiting students which would be examinable in the Winter examination diet. The question was asked about these new courses for visiting students not appearing on MyCampus, for example in the student's timetable. Mr Hastings advised that the Student Lifecycle and Support Development (SLSD) team had indicated that the visiting students could be enrolled on the full course as audit only and would still appear on MyCampus with the visiting student version being used only for examination scheduling.

ASC considered that no individual option could recommended but that it should be left to the discretion of individual Schools to select the option which best suited their needs. ASC agreed that a paper should be prepared, for distribution to Heads of School and for discussion with all staff, by the Clerk. The paper should clarify the options available for Schools when dealing with visiting student semester 1 examinations.

Action: Clerk

ASC/2014/54 Periodic Subject Review 

 

ASC/2014/54.1 Full Review Reports 

ASC/2014/54.1.1 Classics

Academic Standards Committee received the report of the Classics Periodic Subject Review held on 4 December 2014. The Report identified 12 commendations and 16 recommendations.

The PSR reviewer, Dr Allison Orr, advised that the report was, overall, complimentary to the Subject Area. Dr Orr identified a number of corrections that were required:

Cover sheet - Amend December 2015 to December 2014

Page 4, item 4.1.1 second last line, insert 'support' to read 'additional support';

Page 9, item 5.3.2, final line, '(please also refer to 4.6.4)', should read please also refer to 4.7.4;

Page 14, Commendation 3 is repeated under Commendation 11. Suggest that Commendation 3 is removed;

Page 17, Recommendation 10 is also included in recommendation 15, which is an unnecessary overlap. Remove second sentence from Recommendation 10.

ASC requests a follow-up of the recommendations within six months.

Action: Senate Office 

ASC/2014/54.2 12-Month Update Reports 

ASC/2014/54.2.1 Nursing and Healthcare

ASC received the 12-month update report from the review of Nursing and Healthcare which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. ASC noted that the Convener considered the recommendations have been mainly, given full and appropriate consideration, however, considered that Recommendation 8 may need to be monitored. The ASC reviewers considered that the subject area should be commended on their engagement with the recommendations and found a number of the responses were positive and imaginative. However it was noted that there were a number of conditional responses in the report and that it was to be hoped that subsequent updates would display more evidence of substantial progress.

ASC noted that the actions taken to address Recommendations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 appeared to be reasonable and appropriate. It was agreed that reports on further progress should be requested in relation to the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1: ASC requested an update on the progress of the Trans National Education (TNE) initiatives. Information should also be provided regarding the anticipated numbers to be enrolled on the new PGT programmes.

Recommendation 2: The response was brief and not entirely satisfactory. ASC considered that the College Newsletter and University news were rather limited forums and would like to see evidence of more detailed engagement with external communication.

Recommendation 6: ASC considered that there was a need for further work to be undertaken to adequately address this issue. The School should identify and set recognisable targets. An update should be provided to ASC outlining what steps had been taken to manage workloads of probationers.

Recommendation 7: An update on how plans were developing for the introduction of a process improvement exercise to alleviate pressure on the School.

Recommendation 8: ASC considered that this response was insufficient and that the School should consult with other Schools to determine what other methods were used to select and train GTAs. ASC noted that that some of the tasks listed, such as assisting with the operation of scanners, did not appear to be an appropriate use of a GTA's time or skills.

Recommendation 14: ASC considered that greater engagement was required to encourage students to chair meetings of the Staff/Student Liaison Committee. An update should be provided to ASC.

The updates should be submitted to the November meeting of ASC.

Action: Senate Office 

ASC/2014/54.3 Update Reports 

ASC/2014/54.3.1 School of Physics & Astronomy

A response was reported to ASC which advised that provision had been made in the College Plan for the introduction of additional staff in support of the TRM process and for a teaching Administrator, possibly to be shared between Physics & Astronomy and Chemistry. ASC noted that the original recommendation pertained to local staff support, specifically at School, and not College, level. Therefore, it was agreed that a further update on the status of the additional staff should be provided to ASC in October, also explaining how this would assist teaching administration at School level.

Action: Senate Office

ASC/2014/55 Items Referred from The Glasgow School of Art 

 

ASC/2014/55.1 Report from the Programme Approval Event held at The Glasgow School of Art on 11 February 2015 

The Committee received the report from The Glasgow School of Art Programmes which outlined Programme Validation and Major Programme Amendments which had been approved by the GSA Academic Council held on 11 March 2015. ASC approved:

  • The validation of the programme - Master of Research for a six year period commencing academic session 2015-16 Members noted the al 1+ 2 model.
  • The amendment to the MDes Fashion and Textiles to place the Design Process Portfolio courses at Levels 1-3 by cross GSA postgraduate Electives.
  • The amendment to BDes (Hons) Fashion and Textiles to a disaggregation into: BA (Hons) Fashion Design and the BA (Hons) Textile Design.
  • The amendment to BDes (Hons) Digital Culture which will provide greater parity with the other Design Undergraduate programmes offered by GSA. It was anticipated that the title change may be proposed in due course and this would be reported to ASC accordingly.
  • The amendment to the MLitt Curatorial Practice (Contemporary Art) to permit 20 credits in each course to be assessed through studio work.  
ASC/2014/55.2 Update on Recommendations from the Periodic Review of the Digital Design Studio 

ASC noted the update to the Periodic Review Report for Digital Design Studio undertaken at the GSA in session 2012/13.   

ASC/2014/55.3 Update on Programme Approval Recommendations from Session 2012-13 for the MSc Visualisation Programme 

ASC noted the update requested for the Programme Approval Recommendations from session 2012-13 for the MSc Visualisation programme. 

ASC/2014/55.4 Proposal for Additional Named Awards for the MDes Design Innovation Programmes 

ASC approved in principle the additional named awards for the MDes in Design Innovation programme:

  • MDes in Design Innovation and Interaction Design
  • MDes in Design Innovation and Transformation design
  • MDes in Design Innovation and collaborative Creativity  

Upon approval by the relevant GSA committees, it was anticipated that the final documentation would be submitted to ASC in May for approval. 

ASC/2014/56 Item Referred from the Edinburgh Theological Seminary 

 

ASC/2014/56.1 Report of the Meeting of the Joint Board of the University of Glasgow and Edinburgh Theological Seminary 

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

ASC/2014/57 Items Referred from Scotlands Rural College (SRUC) 

 

ASC/2014/57.1 Report from the Meeting of the Joint Liaison Committee of the University of Glasgow (UoG) and Scotlands Rural College (SRUC)  

ASC received the report of the above meeting and approved the membership of the Joint Liaison Committee for 2014-15.  

ASC/2014/57.2 Report from Scotlands Rural College (SRUC) of the Review of Programmes in the Environment and Countryside Subject Group 

ASC received and noted the report of above meeting, including the conditions and recommendations contained in the report. ASC approved the revalidation of the programme BSc/BSc (Hons) Countryside Management for a six-year period commencing session 2015-16. 

ASC/2014/58 Any Other Business 

Professor Davies had submitted an item for consideration by ASC pertaining to the progress regulation in the Generic Regulations for Taught Masters Degrees. He referred to the current regulation which permitted candidates who had reassessments pending to progress from the dissertation or other substantial independent where it was judged that the candidate's performances offered a reasonable prospect of that candidate reaching the standard required for the award of the Master's degree following reassessment. Professor Davies proposed that in this scenario consideration should be given to setting a limit on the amount of reassessment a student could have outstanding for progress to be permitted.

ASC considered that the current regulations permitted Boards to exercise discretion with the flexibility of Schools to set guidelines which can be communicated to students and that it would not be appropriate to amend the generic regulations, at this time.

ASC/2014/59 Date of Next Meeting 

The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Thursday 21 May 2015 at 9.30am in The Gloag Room, 5 The Square

 

Created by: Mrs Lesley Fielding