University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Minute of Meeting held on Friday 15 April 2016 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room
Dr Jack Aitken, Professor John Briggs, Mrs Ruth Cole (vice Ms Helen Butcher), Professor Frank Coton, Professor Tom Guthrie (Convener), Mr Matthew Hastings, Professor Bob Hill, Dr Maria Jackson, Dr Raymond McCluskey, Dr Niall MacFarlane, Professor Douglas Macgregor, Dr Anna Morgan-Thomas, Dr Bryony Randall, Dr Helen Stoddart.
In Attendance:Mrs Lesley Fielding, Ms Leeann Stevenson (vice Ms Jane Broad), Mr Fred Hay (vice Mr John Marsh).
Apologies:Dr Gordon Curry, Professor Neil Evans, Ms Gemma Gratton, Dr Martin Macauley, Dr Charlotte Methuen, Dr Anna O'Neill, Dr Allison Orr, Ms Anna Phelan.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
Further to ASC's request for additional information, an update provided by Professor Evans advised that the School had reconsidered their argument regarding the discretionary zone policy and that it was the School's intention that the new Assessment and Feedback Committee undertake a review of the various policies.
The Convener advised that this issue would be considered at the May meeting of ASC.
ASC received a paper from the Graduate School of the College of Arts with a summary of feedback from the postgraduate programme conveners on a proposal for an alternative calculation of PGT degrees where the mark for the dissertation was included in the calculation of the final GPA. ASC noted and discussed the seventeen responses and, in view of the diversity of opinion expressed across the College of Arts, agreed that no amendments to the regulations were required at this time. The Director of the Senate Office drew the members' attention to item 12 (ASC15/70), Academic Regulations and Their Management, which outlined the introduction of a schedule for the periodic review of existing regulations, on a five yearly basis. The schedule would enable reconsideration of regulatory matters in a judicious manner, giving due consideration to other issues and to verify claims prior to proceeding with requests. As evidenced from the current and recent discussions, there were numerous occasions when ASC had been asked to make decisions on regulatory matters. The introduction of the schedule would introduce order to the process and remove the obligation for ASC to consider individual requests from around the University on an ad hoc basis. The Convener welcomed this development and requested that the postgraduate regulations, which had been in place for longer than five years, be prioritised for review in the schedule.
Action: Senate Office
Professor Hill introduced the above report. ASC was asked to consider a number of proposals from the Academic Regulations Sub-Committee (ARSC):
Proposed Single Schedule of Aggregation
At the February meeting of ASC, it had agreed that, where components graded using Schedule A were equal or greater than 50 percent, Schedule A should be used to publish the final grade, however, no decision had been made regarding the operation of rounding where the result would be reported as a Schedule B value. ARSC provided the following example for discussion:
Course assessment comprises Exam (40%), Practical skills assessment (60%):
Exam (Schedule A) = A3 = (20 x 0.4)
Skills assessment (Schedule B) = 0D = (11 x 0.6) Overall course result (8 + 6.6) = 14.6
The question to be resolved was whether this should be reported as:
0B (: rounded up from 14.6 to 15.0, which would then result in a value of 17 contributing to aggregation)
OR
0C (: reflecting the fact that 14.6 has not passed the threshold of 15 required to be in the B band, i.e. an achieving a competence' approach. This would result in a value of 14 contributing to aggregation.)
It was noted that the overall course result (B or C) is higher than the level achieved on the competence-based component.
Further to discussion, ASC agreed that for the example provided by ARSC, whereby the overall course result was calculated at 14.6, = the final course grade should be reported as an overall 0C reflecting the fact that 14.6 has not passed the threshold of 15 required to be in the B band. The general principle to be adopted therefore was that where more than 50% of the course assessment was graded using Schedule B, the resulting aggregation value should not be rounded up, in contrast to the practice with Schedule A values. This was to be reviewed after one year of operation.
Action: Clerk, ARSC
SLSD Development Work
ASC noted that SLSD would not be able to complete the development work required to implement the proposed revision for a single schedule of aggregation for session 2016-17; however, work should be completed for session 2017-18. Members also noted that some academic areas had still to decide how credits should be allocated to components assessed under Schedule A and Schedule B. ASC agreed that the Colleges, with courses that were not credit rated for Schedule B, should be encouraged to progress this matter.
Action: Clerk, ARSC
Format of Schedules
Members noted that ASC's request for further consideration be given to the proposed layout of the table presenting the single schedule of aggregation would be discussed by ASRC at its next meeting. There were separate discussions being held, regarding the re-formatting of the University Calendar to an on-line document, which had implications for the presentation of the tables.
Rapid Return of Coursework/Late Penalties
The current regulation on penalties for late submission involved the award of a grade H after the submission was five working days late. This caused difficulty in cases where rapid feedback, often the day after submission, was being provided. ASC approved ARSC's proposal to amend the Code of Assessment to allow this timescale to be overridden and to allow grade 'H' to be awarded more quickly in such cases. This could only be applied to assessments which together contribute no more than 25% of the total assessment for a course.
Action: Clerk, ARSC
Issue arising from School of Geographical & Earth Sciences
In response to a request from ASC, ARSC re-evaluated Geography's practice of using only A1, A3 and A5 from the five available A grades when marking components of assessment as reported in recommendation 9 of the PSR of the School of Geographical & Earth Sciences. ASC considered ARSC's view that it was unacceptable for a subject area to opt out of using two of the bands, particularly when other areas of the university were fully implementing the 22-point scale. Members discussed the merits of using only three bands which, as evidenced in the GES experiment, appeared to encourage Schools to award more A1 grades. The Convenor reminded members that A1 was not reserved for perfect answers, but answers where no more could reasonably be expected of a student's at that stage of their University career. The Vice Principal (Academic and Educational Innovation) advised members that data on grade distribution, for the past five years, had been collated for circulation throughout the University to encourage all areas to utilise the full range of A grades. Accordingly, ASC considered that the use of all five grades in marking was necessary to ensure continuity throughout the University and endorsed ARSC's view that the School of Geographical & Earth Sciences should be required to reinstate the use of all five A grades in marking.
Action: Senate Office
Role of External Examiner in Discretionary Decisions
ARSC provided an extract from the Guide to the Code of Assessment which indicated that in some areas external examiners play a key role in determining the final classification of candidates in the discretionary zone by reviewing the full range of the candidate's assessments and making an overall judgement on the standard of work. Two issues had arisen in respect of this.
a) Assessed material from periods of study abroad
ASC was asked to endorse ARSC's view that a student undertaking study abroad should be asked to bring back to Glasgow work that had been assessed at their host institution, with a view to that work forming part of what was seen by an External Examiner if asked to consider, as a discretionary case, the final honours outcome for that candidate. Members recognised that students undertaking Study Abroad could be disadvantaged in relation to this in comparison with home students. However, the Convener considered that, in order to fully consider the implications of such a requirement, the Deans of Learning & Teaching and the Dean for International Mobility should be invited to comment on this proposal for further consideration by ASC.
Action: Clerk, ASC
b) Wording of 2.7.4 Guidelines on discretion
ASC was asked to approve a revision to the wording of 2.7.4 to provide greater clarity and to address ongoing debate regarding the application of discretion in cases where candidates' profiles were found to be very close to the borderline for promotion but did not justify promotion in relation to any of the published criteria. In considering the revisions, ASC considered that the guidance should reflect the fact that there had to be clear criteria for referring candidates to the external examiner. It should also be made clear that in making any decisions, the external examiner would be applying their knowledge of standards at comparable institutions. The guidance should also state that the criteria for the consideration of work under discretion and the rationale for the Board's decision should be clearly recorded. ASC approved the revision of the wording of 2.7.4 subject to these amendments.
Action: Clerk, ARSC
ASC/2015/49.1.1 Academic Development Unit
ASC received the report of the Review of Academic Development Unit which had taken place on 7 December 2015. The PSR reviewers reported that it was a positive report with a number of Commendations and evidence of Good Practice.
ASC discussed Commendation 8, which referred to the flexibility provided for assignment submission deadlines, and whether this was appropriate in view of the University's current regulations. The Vice Principal (Academic and Educational Innovation) reminded ASC that this was a credit bearing qualification for Continuous Professional Development of staff and, therefore, flexibility regarding submission dates was essential in order to accommodate the working patterns of academic staff. ASC concurred with this statement, and recommended that the commendation should be reworded to reflect this.
With regard to Recommendation 4, Central Timetabling should be added to the distribution list marked for information.
1.3 (p1) MEd Learning in Teaching Programme should be amended to MEd Learning and Teaching Programme.
Subject to these amendments, the report was approved for onward transmission to relevant officers responsible for taking forward the recommendations.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2015/49.2.1 Geographical & Earth Sciences
ASC received the six-month update report from the review of Geographical & Earth Sciences which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. Overall, the responses were considered adequate, and ASC agreed that Recommendation 6 should be disseminated as Good Practice across the University. The College, in response to Recommendation 7, had noted potential problems arising from the regulations of the MA (Arts), in particular the specification of which courses were to qualify as 'Arts' courses.. It was understood that these regulations were also causing concern in the College of Social Sciences and ASC agreed to seek further information on this issue.
With regard to Recommendation 10, although ASC was disappointed to note the lack of progress on this issue, the Vice Principal (Academic and Educational Innovation) advised that new promotion guidelines for University Teachers were under development and anticipated that this should, when implemented, fully address this recommendation.
As detailed at item 5, ASC endorsed ARSC's view that with regard to Recommendation 9, GES should reinstate use of all the available A grades.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2015/49.2.2 History
ASC received the six-month update from the review of History which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. ASC noted that the following responses would require updates to the September meeting of ASC.
Recommendation 1: The response did not fully satisfy the recommendation that the Subject Area review the range of assessment methods. Whilst the Subject Area had adjusted the percentage of assessment set for exams from 60 to 50 percent, it had not addressed fully the aim of the recommendation which was to encourage the Subject Area to search for greater variation and flexibility within their modes of assessment. ASC requested an update on this recommendation.
Recommendation 2: ASC queried the Subject Area's assertion that the current course approval practices in the College of Arts did not easily facilitate curriculum mapping or that the Board of Studies was resistant to the Subject Areas employing a standard suite of ILOS. ASC understood that the College of Arts followed University practices, as detailed by the Senate Office, and that it was not the role of the Board of Studies to review ILOs from a range of courses. ASC requested an update on this recommendation.
Recommendation 4: In the Subject Area's response, there was no reference to the involvement of the School TELT Officer in advising on learning and teaching initiatives through the use of technology. ASC would suggest that the Subject Area contact the School or College TELT contact for guidance on this recommendation and provide an update to ASC.
Recommendation 8, ASC requested an update on the development of a formal induction event for staff.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2015/49.2.3 Urban Studies
ASC received the six-month update report from the review of Urban Studies which detailed the responses and progress made, to date, in implementing the recommendations. The reviewers considered that the responses were overall, excellent; however, ASC requested an update be provided for Recommendation 1, regarding the development of a learning and teaching strategy. The members were concerned regarding the developments outlined in Recommendation 7 concerning disabled access and, although the situation had been clarified by CTT, considered it was regrettable that the Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living no longer sponsored individuals with mobility disabilities to attend the Housing Studies programme. The Vice Principal (Academic and Educational Innovation) advised members that, further to an investigation as a result of this issue, it had been determined that of the 263 room change requests from schools, connected with disabled access, CTT had accommodated all these requests. In order to dispel the confusion and widespread assumptions regarding the nine month advance notice requirement, ASC agreed that CTT should be asked to clearly communicate the booking system for disabled access to all schools.
Action: Senate Office
ASC/2015/49.3.1 Philosophy
ASC received a consolidated update from the Heads of College, School and Subject. ASC noted the responses, however, expressed disappointment that the recommendations had not been fully addressed. Accordingly, ASC agreed that recommendations 7, 11, and 13 should be referred to the PSR panel of the next review due to be held in Session 2019-20.
Action: Senate Office
ASC received the update on the progress of recommendations and requested updates on the following recommendations:
Recommendation 1: how GIC plan to embed the mentoring process
Recommendation 2: progress on the data entry requirement and student integration
It was noted that with regard to recommendation 9, the final proposal regarding the review of the three Boards would be submitted to ASC for approval.
Action: Academic Collaborations Office
The Convener spoke to a tabled paper listing alternative dates for the meetings of ASC for session 2016-17. ASC approved these dates.
ASC received and noted the report of the Meeting of the Joint Board of the University of Glasgow and Christie's Education. The remit and membership of the Board for the current session were approved.
ASC received the report of the above meeting and approved the membership of the Joint Liaison Committee for 2015-16.
ASC had approved this proposal in principle at the November meeting and considered that all the conditions had been fulfilled. ASC approved the MSc in Environmental Architecture at the Glasgow School of Art to commence in September 2016
ASC had approved this proposal in principle at the November meeting and considered that all the conditions had been fulfilled. ASC approved the introduction of three named awards for the MDes Design Innovation Programme to be delivered at the GSA's Creative campus in Forres:
MDes Design Innovation and Collaborative Creativity
MDes Design Innovation and Interaction Design
MDes Design Innovation and Transformation Design.
ASC noted the proposed implementation of a schedule for the periodic review of existing regulations, generally five years after their introduction, with an early reflection one year after implementation.
ASC noted the proposal to deliver the BA Rural Business Managements programme at SRUC's Ayr Campus and the reporting of the programme through the Annual Report submitted to UoG/SRUC Joint Liaison Committee.
The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 20 May 2016 at 9.30am in the Melville Room.
Created by: Mrs Lesley Fielding