University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Minute of Meeting held on Friday 12 February 2016 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room
Dr Jack Aitken, Professor John Briggs, Ms Helen Butcher, Ms Gerry Durning (vice Mr Matthew Hastings), Professor Tom Guthrie (Convener), Dr Maria Jackson, Dr Raymond McCluskey, Dr Niall MacFarlane, Professor Douglas Macgregor, Dr Anna Morgan-Thomas, Dr Anna O'Neill, Dr Allison Orr, Dr Bryony Randall, Dr Helen Stoddart.
In Attendance:Mrs Lesley Fielding, Ms Jane Broad, Mr Fred Hay (vice Mr John Marsh), Professor John Davies (for item ASC/2015/42), Dr Robert Doherty (for items ASC/2015/5 and 6.4), Mrs Maggie Jago (for item ASC/2015/5), Dr Morag Casey (for item ASC/2015/35.3).
Apologies:Professor Frank Coton, Dr Gordon Curry, Professor Neil Evans, Ms Gemma Gratton, Professor Bob Hill, Dr Martin Macauley, Dr Charlotte Methuen, Ms Anna Phelan.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as a correct record subject to the following correction:
Under Present: Remove 'Dr Bryony Randall' and add under 'Apologies'.
P5, paragraph beginning 'ASC noted the plans... 4th line, replace 'Members noted, that currently, PIP and MyCampus were not compatible and this would be discussed as part of the project to facilitate the transfer of data between systems.' with 'Members noted that there is a mapping between PIP and MyCampus which would facilitate the transfer of data between systems'.
At the November meeting of ASC clarification was sought regarding Assessment procedures outlined in the Arts CAMS which referred to mark mapping. Members were advised that this assessment referred to an online multiple question test which was permitted under the Code of Assessment.
The issue of resource difficulties with Technology-Enabled Learning and Teaching (TELT), had been forwarded to the Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) for discussion. The response from LTC advised that a Working Group had been established entitled Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) Development Board. Part of the group's remit will be to look at what developments are taking place across the University as well as community requirements. It will also investigate available resources, including external funding.
It was noted from the last meeting of the Deans of Graduate Studies (DoGS) that, as Colleges were in the process of adapting the College of Arts policy in relation to Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs), no further discussion was required by the DoGS at this time.
Professor Davies spoke to the paper which proposed the re-alignment of the generic regulations for taught masters programmes with the regulations for undergraduate programmes. The proposal advocated that a D grade should be considered as 'satisfactory' throughout which would resolve the inconsistent treatment of integrated (MSci/MEng) and standalone (MSc) masters programmes in the College of Science & Engineering.
Members noted the following factors in their discussions:
- The use of grade descriptors means that candidates are assessed against a masters level performance standard rather than relying on achievement of a particular percentage;
- That the regulations currently acknowledged professional accreditation requirements and provision was made to satisfy these accreditation criteria;
- The existing distinction between Honours and MSc levels which designated masters levels with a higher degree of difficulty;
- External Examiner comments on these inconsistencies;
The Director of the Student Lifecycle and Support Development (SLSD) advised the meeting that the SLSD team would work alongside the Senate Office to assess the impact of any changes made, and whilst acknowledging that academic integrity was the main priority, highlighted that changing C to D would be the most challenging option, administratively, to adapt.
The Convener noted that the University differentiated between courses through learning outcomes, and as the integrated Master and standalone MSc were both of SCQF Level 11 this contradicted the different grades of C and D. Two potential issues of concern were identified:
- External perception of other HEIs;
- The dropout exit award in the event that students did not meet the requirement for Masters.
The Director of the Senate Office stressed the importance of University-wide consultation on this issue and consideration of the practical implications for SLSD. Members agreed that wider consultations would be necessary and, to facilitate this, a revised paper should be prepared for circulation to College Boards of Studies, Deans of Graduate Studies and Deans of Learning & Teaching. In addition, the Convener of ASC would seek to meet with these groups.
Action: Professor John Davies; Convener of ASC
Dr Doherty and Mrs Jago were in attendance from the School of Education to answer questions on the proposal. The paper outlined that, of the four programmes of teacher education offered by the School, two programmes had become integrated Masters programmes. The School sought ASC's agreement, in principle, to proceed with replacing the remaining two honours programmes of teacher education: the Bachelor of Technology Education (BTechEd) and MA in Religious and Philosophical Education (MA-R&P) with a form of integrated Masters programme similar to the Master of Education (Primary Education), approved in Session 2013-14. ASC agreed in principle to this proposal.
Dr Stoddart introduced the report for the College of Arts and drew the attention of ASC to examples of good practice which included development of Graduate Attributes and training opportunities for PGT students.
A matter identified for the attention of the University was the failure of some students, despite a good performance in the dissertation, to gain a Distinction because of performance in the taught courses. The Schools of Critical Studies and Modern Languages & Cultures proposed that ARSC should consider an alternative calculation for the classification of PGT degrees where the mark for the dissertation was included in the calculation of the final GPA:
Merit - Mean overall aggregation score equal = or > B3 and B for dissertation
Distinction - Mean overall aggregation score = or > A5 and A for dissertation.
In considering the proposal, the Convener highlighted the complexity of the situation as evidenced in the Social and Political CAMS which expressed concern regarding students excluded from the criteria for Merit arising from the impact of a C grade dissertation mark. The Convener reminded members that the current regulation had resulted from previous concerns that the numbers of Merits and Distinctions awarded were too high.
ASC reflected on possible causal factors contributing to uneven student performance including the settling in period which affected many students, particularly international students, slow early performance and exit velocity.
The Convener concluded that, in order for the Committee to gain a better understanding of the issues surrounding this proposal, more detailed background information should be sought, including identification of areas of the learning and teaching process which might benefit from further reflection. ASC agreed that the Dean of Graduate Studies for the College of Arts should be asked to provide this information.
Action: Clerk to ASC
Dr Anna O'Neil introduced the report for the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences (MVLS). Matters identified which required University attention included:
- Support for the Global Mental Health (GHS) programme to develop online GMH programmes that could be delivered in parallel to on-campus teaching. Student numbers for this programme are expected to increase threefold next session;
- Room bookings;
- Pull printing and the subsequent impact on costs;
- MyCampus, particularly in relation to student fees.
The Clerk of Senate advised members that the difficulties identified with regard to MyCampus were mainly attributable to the use of non-MyCampus systems within the College. A meeting was scheduled between the Clerk of Senate, SLSD and College staff to review how MyCampus was utilised and to identify satellite systems, such as Access databases, which could detract from the efficiency of MyCampus.
Centralisation of Administrative support was identified as an issue.
Dr Morag Casey spoke to the report and advised the Committee that she had assumed the role of College Quality Officer in December 2015. ASC noted that a separate CAMS report had not been prepared for the PGT programmes as the same issues were applicable as for the undergraduate programmes. Dr Casey advised that the current submission date for the postgraduate CAMS was considered too late to be effective and impacted negatively on the College's ability in closing the loop. Consequently, consideration was being given, by the College, to rescheduling the submission date for CAMS.
Matters identified for the attention of the University included:
- Difficulties in securing appropriate accommodation;
- Cost effectiveness of pull printing;
- Language capabilities of overseas students;
- The onerous workload created by Transnational Education (TNE).
Dr Casey highlighted difficulties experienced with non-standard exams for the January intake of PGT students. ASC noted that this topic had been discussed at the February 2015 meeting of ASC (ASC/2014/37.4). As the issue had evidently not been resolved, ASC agreed this matter should be referred to the College for further consideration.
Action: Dean of Graduate Studies, College of Science & Engineering
Ms Broad addressed the issues identified within the CAMS for the College of Science and Engineering concerning MyCampus and advised members that, with regard to the production of spreadsheets for examination boards, the generation of new functionality in MyCampus should make this function possible in future. With respect to difficulties encountered in allocating student lab classes, Ms Broad informed ASC that at the time of the initial consultations between the College and the Student Lifestyle Project (SLP) no interface had been possible with CMIS. This function had now been developed; however, maintenance of the system was the responsibility of the College. Ms Broad informed members that SLSD could assist the College with enrolment issues.
Dr Doherty drew the attention ASC to examples of good practice which included bespoke international projects for students and use of peer review to improve assignments before submission for marking and formal feedback.
Issues identified for University attention included:
- Central Timetabling;
- Difficulties arising from MyCampus affecting both students and staff, particularly in relation to incorrect fees being applied to student accounts;
- Reactivity of counselling services for students.
ASC noted the above report which contained a number of proposals for ASC to consider.
Proposed Single Schedule of Assessment
ASC considered ARSC's proposal that reference should be made to a combined single 'Schedule of Aggregation', with continued use of Assessment Schedule A and (a revised) Schedule B of Assessment. The proposal noted that it would be necessary to distinguish between the range of grades currently available under Schedule B and the revised grades to be available. Members discussed a number of issues in relation to the Schedule of Aggregation including:
- Concern that the proposed Schedule of Aggregation was unclear and overly complicated;
- The suitability of a single schedule with a footnote;
- The move to using grade points associated with the top of the Schedule B bands.
The Committee agreed that ARSC had given this issue full and careful consideration and therefore ASC was satisfied to approve the proposal to introduce the single 'Schedule of Aggregation' with continued reference to Schedule A and Schedule B of Assessment. It was agreed that the Senate Office should reflect further on the layout of the table presented in Appendix 1. Ms Butcher stressed the importance of being able to identify, for all components, which marking schedule should be used. Ms Broad advised members that whilst MyCampus would be able to accommodate this development, it was essential to ensure that the data provided was accurate.
Action: Senate Office
Calculation of final course results where both assessment schedules are in use
ASC considered ARSC's request for a policy decision on the 'rounding' process to be used where course component grades were drawn from both Schedule A and Schedule B. Members discussed the difficulties presented:
- when the components of assessment were of equal value;
- in reflecting granularity where the Schedule A graded component was greater than 50 percent.
ASC agreed that, where components graded using Schedule A were equal to or greater than 50 percent, Schedule A should be used to publish the final grade, but should be reviewed after the first year. In order to allay concerns surrounding the move away from the use of midpoints and the possibility of over-compensation during the aggregation process, it was agreed that the Senate Office should assess the implications for the criteria for the award of degree classifications.
Action: Clerk to ARSC, Senate Office
External Examiner reports regarding assessment issues 2014-15
Operation of discretion in the award of joint degrees
ASC considered two external examiners' comments which highlighted that outcomes for students from the same School may be determined with reference to different discretionary criteria depending on whether a student was on a single or joint degree programme. Members agreed that, in such instances, it was essential that full and appropriate discussions took place between the boards involved in the joint degree. ASC agreed that this issue should be referred to the College Learning & Teaching Committee for further discussion.
Action: Dean of Learning & Teaching, College of Arts
Width of discretionary bands and role of GPA/grade profile in determining classification
ASC noted that the decision of ASC in November, wherein Boards could operate different rules for promotion depending on GPA, would be relayed to the external examiners whose reports had raised the issue.
Role of viva in the operation of discretion
ASC noted the comments received from external examiners for the School of Life Sciences concerning the role of the viva in relation to other criteria applied in discretionary cases. ASC agreed that the School should be invited to respond to these comments.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2015/37.1.1 Chemistry
ASC received the six-month update report from the review of the School of Chemistry. The Convener of the PSR Panel considered that the recommendations had been, as far as possible, given full and appropriate consideration. The ASC reviewers reported that the responses were most satisfactory and offered the following as examples of good practice:
- GTA support;
- Essay support;
- Curriculum changing.
ASC was satisfied with the Schools' responses to all the recommendations and no further updates were required.
ASC/2015/37.1.2 Classics
ASC received the updated report from the review of Classics. The Convener of the Review Panel considered that the recommendations had been mainly, given full and appropriate consideration. The ASC reviewers identified the following issues:
- Recommendation 1: The School response addressed learning and teaching but did not address plans for a coherent strategic vision in terms of future growth with no reference to an action plan. ASC requested an update on this item in Session 2016-17;
- Recommendation 4: This response was unclear as it was not clear if only Single Honours are expected to attend. The Committee considered it important for further consideration to be given to the alternative arrangements in place to ensure the ILOs are still met for those unable to attend and for this to be communicated clearly in the student handbook with an update provided to ASC in 2016-17;
- Recommendation 5: The arrangements for funding were acceptable for session 2015; however future funding remained uncertain. The Subject Area should provide an update to ASC in Session 2016-17;
- Recommendation 6: ASC noted the subject area's development of grade descriptors for translation from Latin to Greek due to be introduced in 2016-17. An update on the progress and effectiveness of this development should be reported to the ASC in 2016-17;
- Recommendation 7: It was noted from the Subject Area's response that they were unable to fund GTA hours, but were fully implementing the University's policy on GTA employment;
- Recommendation 15: ASC noted with interest the subject area's consideration of the Buddy System and requested a further update on the progress of this development in Session 2016-17.
ASC/2015/37.2.1 Open Studies
ASC received the update report from the review of Open Studies. ASC noted that there had been no resolution of the recommendation regarding the unsuitability of the Art Room. ASC agreed that as the next PSR of Open Studies was scheduled for Session 2017-18 this issue should be referred to the PSR Panel for consideration.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2015/37.2.2 Philosophy - Oral Update
The Convener advised members that the Head of College and the Head of School would submit a joint response to the recommendations at the April meeting of ASC.
ASC/2015/37.2.3 Physics - Oral Update
The Convener advised members that the Panel's recommendation had been that the School should have dialogue with the College regarding dedicated administrative support for teaching. This had taken place and the recommendation has, strictly, been fulfilled. Members noted that dialogue was continuing between the School and College on how teaching support would be provided. ASC would be updated in due course.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2015/37.2.4 Sociology
ASC received the update report from the review of Sociology. ASC considered that, with regard to Recommendation 15, which referred to the revision of the Subject Area's approach to Student Mobility, the School's response was satisfactory and no further updates would be required.
ASC received the paper on Semester 2 Study Abroad in which ASC was asked to consider what position should be adopted in relation to applications for study abroad in Semester 2 from students with outstanding assessment relating to courses taken in Semester 1. The following options were proposed:
- Subject areas to move assessment for semester 1 courses from April/May to December;
- Students be required to take University of Glasgow exams while at the host institution;
- Returning students to sit exams in August.
Members acknowledged that all options had disadvantages and generally concurred that moving assessment for semester 1 courses from April/May to December was not practical due to administrative and resource implications. Members noted that the Registry's preference was for returning students to sit examinations in August.
ASC discussed the various challenges and noted the following:
- The option for students to undertake UoG exams at host institutions would present resource issues for the Registry and Schools. It was noted that, previously, difficulties had been encountered in persuading partner institutions to undertake this task;
- The option for returning Level 2 students to sit exams in August would not present difficulties due to the availability of resit papers. The situation for returning Level 3 students was more complex as special papers would be required, entailing additional work for staff.
Members noted that information from the Marketing, Recruitment and International Office (MaRIO) indicated that applications for one-semester study abroad were generally higher for semester 2 than for semester 1 and considered that it was important to redress this trend through active promotion of Semester 1 Study Abroad.
Action: MaRIO
ASC agreed that the optimum solution would be for students to sit exams for outstanding semester 1 assessments upon their return. As already noted the situation regarding Level 3 students was more challenging in terms of staff workload. Therefore, in order to address this, ASC agreed that Level 3 students with outstanding assessments from semester 1 could undertake these assessments at the end of their fourth year unless an alternative form of assessment had been prearranged. The arrangements for undertaking outstanding assessment must be made prior to enrolment to the scheme.
Action: Senate Office
The Convener clarified that, with regard to those semester 1 courses with exams in April/May, it was acceptable to offer an alternative form of assessment for visiting students which clearly examined the intended learning outcomes of the course and this might be applied to GU students considering study abroad in semester 2.
ASC received the report of the above meeting and approved the membership of the Joint Liaison Committee for 2015-16. ASC also approved two members of staff recommended as recognised teachers of the University. ASC noted the remainder of the report including the appointment of two external examiners under Summer Powers.
ASC noted the new programmes approved by the Programme Approval Groups (PAGS) for introduction in 2016-17:
College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences
MSc Biotechnology & Management
College of Social Sciences
International Master: Global Markets, Local Creativities
PgCert Antiquities Trafficking & Art Crime
The dates and memberships of the four PAGs scheduled for March 2016 were noted.
The Convener advised members that the report from the Translation of Grades Working Group would now be submitted to the April meeting.
The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 17 April 2015 at 9.30am in the Melville Room.
Created by: Mrs Lesley Fielding