University of Glasgow

Academic Standards Committee

Minute of Meeting held on Friday 25 November 2016 at 9:30 AM in the Gilbert Scott Conference Suite 250

Present:

Professor Marc Alexander, Professor John Briggs, Ms Helen Butcher, Dr Gordon Curry, Professor Neil Evans, Professor Tom Guthrie (Convener), Dr Maria Jackson, Dr Raymond McCluskey, Professor Douglas MacGregor, Dr Margaret Martin, Dr Anna O'Neill, Ms Kate Powell, Ms Joanne Ramsey, Dr Bryony Randall. 

In Attendance:

Mrs Ruth Cole, Mr Fred Hay (vice Mr John Marsh), Ms Kirsty Palfreyman (vice Ms Jane Broad), Dr Chris Lindsay (for item ASC/2016/17.1), Dr Kenneth Hutton (for item ASC/2016/20).

Apologies:

Dr Jack Aitken, Professor Frank Coton, Mr Matthew Hastings, Dr Niall MacFarlane, Dr Charlotte Methuen, Dr Anna Morgan-Thomas, Ms Anna Phelan, Dr Helen Stoddart. 

 
ASC/2016/12 Minutes of the Meeting held on Friday 30 September 2016 

The minutes were accepted as a correct record. 

ASC/2016/13 Matters Arising 

 

ASC/2016/13.1 Translation of Grades from Study Abroad (ASC/2016/2.1) 

The Convener advised members that conversion tables and guidance was now available on the Senate Office website and that the Translation of Grades from Study Abroad Sub-committee would reconvene in 2017 to consider the on-going support requirements for this activity and the conversion tables that had not yet been finalised. 

ASC/2016/13.2 Conveners Business: Programme Approval Group and Validated Institutions Scrutiny (ASC/2016/3.2 and ASC/2016/3.3) 

It had been decided that all members should be available to be called upon to participate in an ASC-PAG as and when relevant proposals were put forward. The exceptions to this were Dr O'Neill and Ms Ramsey, who would become the scrutineers for proposals from the Validated Institutions.

It was noted that ASC members were also being invited to participate in programme approval groups taking place at College level.

ASC/2016/14 Convener's Business 

The Convener advised that the Annual Monitoring process was to be reviewed to ensure that it was fit for purpose. There was a view that much of the information coming forward in the reports was already being captured effectively through other processes.  

ASC/2016/15 Report from the Meeting of Academic Regulations Sub-Committee held on 3 November 2016 

Professor Alexander presented the report to the Committee.  

ASC/2016/15.1 Single Schedule of Aggregation 

ASC had previously requested that ARSC give further consideration to the format for the single schedule of aggregation. ARSC had reached the view that Schedule A should be retained in its current form and that Schedule B should be amended to incorporate descriptors for the new grades E and G. Professor Evans had drafted the additional descriptors and ASC agreed to approve the Schedules of Assessment as presented (Appendix 1).

ARSC's view was that there would be interest across the University in the potential for assessing some components such as presentations and postgraduate research training courses under Schedule B. Therefore Deans of Learning and Teaching would be alerted so that information about the change could be disseminated through Learning & Teaching Committees. It was noted that where programmes currently used glossed forms of Schedule B descriptors, these would need to incorporate the new grades E and G.

Action: Clerk

ASC/2016/15.2 Proposed Amendments to Regulations 

PGT progression with incomplete assessment due to Good Cause

ASC agreed to approve the proposed amendment to regulations 7.1 and 7.2 of the generic regulations for postgraduate taught programmes (Appendix 2), allowing students to progress to the dissertation stage where some of the taught course assessment was outstanding due to Good Cause. The regulations made it clear that students were ultimately required to attain a GPA of 12.0 overall to be eligible for the award of the degree.

Students taking more than 120 credits in an academic session

A number of cases had been reported to ARSC of undergraduate students (particularly international students) asking to be allowed to register for more than 120 credits in an academic session. ARSC had noted that the generic undergraduate regulations included the following:

6.2 In each academic session a full-time candidate will normally take courses conveying a total of 120 credits.

Some degree of flexibility was necessary to accommodate situations where a student was taking a combination of courses with an irregular credit value (e.g. multiples of 10 and 15 credits), and when they were required to carry additional credits from a previous session. ASC members noted that there were other circumstances leading to a curriculum of more than 120 credits, such as Language for Mobility courses in advance of study abroad, and an additional load associated with satisfying professional accreditation requirements. ASC acknowledged the serious resourcing issues associated with students simply electing to take additional courses (e.g. space in classes and the appropriate distribution of fee income) and agreed that it was therefore appropriate to give a stronger steer in the generic undergraduate regulations that students were not free simply to elect to take additional credits.

ASC approved the following amended form of section 6.2 of the generic undergraduate regulations:

6.2 In each academic session a full-time candidate will normally take courses conveying a total of totalling 120 credits. A larger number of credits may be taken where necessary to satisfy the requirements for progress or for award of the degree. Alternative arrangements may be permitted, subject to College approval.

Action: Senate Office

ASC/2016/16 Guidelines on the Exercise of Exam Board Discretion 

 

ASC/2016/16.1 Advance Publication of Criteria 

The Convener noted that the guidelines currently included the following:

2.7.3 Applying Discretion

Boards must always record in their minutes which criteria have been applied in the exercise of discretion.

In the interests of transparency, the criteria to be applied by each Exam Board should, if possible, be publicised in advance, e.g. in the programme handbook.

The decision was taken by Senate in June 2012 to harmonise the exercise of Exam Board discretion in the award of classifications for honours degrees and taught masters degrees, and Exam Boards had been required to implement the new guidelines from the spring diet in 2013. Given that this had become an established aspect of Exam Board business, ASC agreed that all Exam Boards should now be required to publish their chosen criteria in advance. The extract above would therefore be amended as follows:

2.7.3 Applying Discretion

Boards must always record in their minutes which criteria have been applied in the exercise of discretion.

In the interests of transparency, the criteria to be applied by each Exam Board should, if possible, must be publicised in advance, e.g. in the programme handbook.

ASC/2016/16.2 Use of Different Criteria in Different Discretionary Zones 

The guidelines set out the list of permitted criteria and an Exam Board could choose which to adopt in determining the outcomes for students in the discretionary zones. While it was expected that students' outcomes should be determined with reference to the same criteria, ASC noted that the guidelines were not currently explicit about whether this meant that the criteria adopted for each discretionary zone within a cohort had to be equivalent. ASC's view was that it was not acceptable to have additional criteria applying in one or more zones, as in the following example:

1st/2.1 borderline: promote if 50% or more of grade profile graded A or above, with no individual grades below C.

2.1/2.2 borderline: promote if 50% or more of grade profile graded B or above, with no individual grades below D.

2.2/3rd borderline: promote if 50% or more of grade profile graded C or above.

In this example the 2.2/3rd borderline did not refer to the individual grades permitted. ASC agreed that the guidelines should be amended to reflect the fact that the same criteria should be adopted in each discretionary zone.

Action: Senate Office

ASC/2016/17 Undergraduate College Annual Monitoring Summaries for 2015-16 

 

ASC/2016/17.1 College of Arts 

Dr Lindsay introduced the report for the College of Arts highlighting positive developments such as the increasing diversity of assessment and greater use of technology in the support of teaching and assessment. Work was on-going to improve feedback to students on assessment, with students seeking more guidance on how to improve their work in the future. The very significant and positive contribution of GTAs was acknowledged and a wide range of good practice had been identified. A number of different subject areas had highlighted concerns regarding low student attendance, particularly at lectures. Many comments had also been made concerning the difficulties associated with teaching accommodation. 

ASC/2016/17.2 College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences 

Professor Evans introduced the report for the College of MVLS, with many positive developments being noted. The report described a range of ways in which teaching methods were evolving to support student centred and student driven learning. ASC also noted the many areas identified for action in the last monitoring cycle where good progress had been made. 

ASC/2016/17.3 College of Science & Engineering 

Dr Casey was unable to attend to present the report for Science & Engineering. The Convener noted that several areas of good practice had been identified, but the report also highlighted many issues which had been raised in previous years where little or no progress had been made in 2015-16. The report noted that the apparent lack of solutions to the identified problems undermined the willingness of staff to engage with the Annual Monitoring process. 

ASC/2016/17.4 College of Social Sciences 

Dr Doherty was unable to attend to present the report for the College. The Convener noted the detailed report which identified several areas of good practice and many areas of progress in relation to issues identified in the previous Annual Monitoring exercise. 

ASC/2016/17.5 Overview 

An overview of the Annual Monitoring Summaries had been prepared by Dr Lowden from the Senate Office. This identified the following themes recurring throughout the summaries:

  • Suitability and quality of teaching spaces: This was one of the most prominent issues highlighted in the College summaries. Concerns included: availability of rooms for teaching and exams; quality of teaching spaces (size, accessibility, facilities); consideration of location during allocation of teaching spaces; communication with Estates & Buildings.

Members had experienced many of the same difficulties themselves and expressed dismay at these issues continuing despite their having been highlighted in previous Annual Monitoring reports as well as through other formal reporting mechanisms. ASC considered this to be a matter of grave concern in view of the fact that the suitability and quality of teaching spaces impacted directly and substantially on the student experience, disrupting teaching and conveying to students an impression of disorganisation. Members recognised the significant negative impact that this was likely to have on student satisfaction and, anecdotally, the view was that the issues were continuing in the current session. It was agreed that ASC's concern should be conveyed to EdPSC and that steps should be taken to explore options for minimising the problems, notwithstanding the current severe pressure on teaching accommodation.

  • Staffing and teaching workloads: were highlighted as key concerns. Members noted that there were longstanding issues concerning the research and teaching loads for staff depending on whether they were based in a School or a Research Institute.
  • Assessment and feedback: All Colleges had highlighted issues relating to assessment and feedback, including consistency of feedback, challenges associated with returning feedback to students promptly, and the need to identify appropriate modes of assessment.
  • EvaSys course evaluation software was associated with issues in all College summaries. While most Schools recognised that it was a valuable tool, providing a large quantity of analysable data, concerns were raised about low response rates and the management of EvaSys data.
  • MyCampus: Concerns were highlighted around the administrative workload and technical issues associated with MyCampus.
  • Moodle: Issues relating to the functional and technical limitations of Moodle were raised along with the need to provide more training for staff.

In addition, ASC agreed that issues relating to the mental health of students was a key theme that should be highlighted. This had recently been raised at the Council of Senate particularly in relation to the fact that the University's support services were overstretched and ASC's view was that the situation should be carefully monitored so that resources could continue to be allocated as appropriate.

Members also agreed that poor attendance at lectures should be highlighted as it had been raised by a number of areas.

ASC concluded that the above-noted issues required University-level attention. They would therefore be forwarded to the relevant areas for action and would be highlighted to EdPSC as key areas of concern arising consistently across many areas of the University.

Action: Senate Office

ASC/2016/18 Periodic Subject Review 

 

ASC/2016/18.1 Reports on PSR to be Received during 2016-17 and Proposed ASC Reviewers 

ASC received and noted the report detailing the schedule of PSR reports due to be submitted to the Committee during the current session with allocated ASC reviewers for each report. All full reports were currently scheduled to be received at the May 2017 meeting. New members were invited to note the role of the reviewer as detailed in the paper. 

ASC/2016/18.2 Six-Month Update Report 2015-16 

ASC/2016/18.2.1 Academic Development Unit

ASC received a report providing an update on actions relating to various recommendations arising from the review of the Academic Development Unit held in December 2015. Dr Randall and Dr McCluskey had scrutinised the responses. The Panel Convener had commented that, as the Learning & Teaching Centre was currently under-going reorganisation, an update on all recommendations should be requested in a further 12 months. Members agreed that this was appropriate. ASC also considered that, following the response provided by the Director of Human Resources to Recommendation 8, a response should be requested from the Director of the Learning and Teaching Centre, concerning the dissemination of information to new staff about the requirement to register for the PgCAP programme and to staff in Schools responsible for arranging mentoring. 

ASC/2016/18.3 Update Reports 

ASC/2016/18.3.1 Classics

ASC received a report providing an update on actions relating to various recommendations arising from the review of Classics held in December 2014. The Committee was satisfied with progress made with Recommendations 1, 4, 5 and 6. The response provided for Recommendation 15 indicated that Classics had not received any international exchange students in 2016-17 so there had been no opportunity to try out the buddy system. ASC noted, however, that the recommendation concerned support for international students rather than those on exchange, so it was agreed that a further response should be requested. 

ASC/2016/19 Items Referred from The Glasgow School of Art 

 

ASC/2016/19.1 Major Programme Amendment Approval: MLitt Fine Art Practice 

ASC considered the documentation relating to the addition of a new pathway (Performance) to the MLitt Fine Art Practice programme at GSA. Members noted the statement on the paper cover sheet that there were no equality implications. There was also no reference to equality considerations in the programme documentation.

ASC agreed to approve the validation of the new pathway for introduction in September 2017. However, given the nature of the new pathway, clarification would be requested from GSA as to how equality implications had been considered in GSA's approval process.

ASC/2016/19.2 Programme Proposal: MLitt Art Writing 

ASC considered the proposal for introduction of the MLitt Art Writing programme, to commence in September 2018. ASC approved the proposal in principle, noting that final Programme Approval documentation would be submitted to ASC in November 2017. 

ASC/2016/19.3 Major Programme Amendment Proposal: MEd Creative Education 

ASC considered the proposed major amendment to the MEd in Creative Education programme. ASC approved the proposal in principle and requested that the following issues be addressed in the approval documentation to be submitted to ASC in May 2017:

  • the reasons for the difference in titles for the PGDiploma and for the MEd,
  • explanation for having an IELTs requirement of 7.0 (rather than the usual 6.0),
  • information regarding the Dissertation preparation course (20 credits) in view of the fact that 20 credits is also awarded for a Research Methods course.

Clerk's post-meeting note:

GSA has advised that the correct title of the amended programme is MEd in the Creative Discipline.

 

ASC/2016/19.4 Major Programme Amendment Proposal: MRes Creative Practices 

ASC considered the proposal for amending the current MRes Creative Practices programme to a research degree, with a pathway leading directly to second year of a PhD. The proposed structure of the MRes incorporated 180 credits (120 taught + 60 project). ASC noted that it was not possible to count this as equivalent to the first full year of research for a PhD. ASC also requested further clarity on the rationale for the four different modes available for the final 60 credits of the programme. The proposal suggested that some students would produce the equivalent of a one-year's research masters thesis over the summer period, which was considerably more than other students on the same programme would be required to complete and appeared unrealistic.

ASC was not able to approve the proposal in its current form.

ASC/2016/19.5 Programme Approval: BA/BSc (Hons) Immersive Systems Design 

In May 2015 ASC had approved in principle a proposal for the development of the BSc Immersive Systems. The proposal now under consideration was for a BSc/BA. ASC noted that whether students were awarded a BSc or BA depended on their choice of project work in Year 4, but that the ILOs did not distinguish between the two degrees. ASC agreed to approve the introduction of the programme in September 2018 subject to reconsideration of the ILOs, specifically addressing the distinction between the BA and the BSc. ASC also requested clarification of:

  • whether students would be admitted to the BA or to the BSc, and
  • the point at which students would be required to finally confirm their pathway.

ASC queried the use of the term 'essay' for one of the BA pathways and noted that this was required to be a substantial piece of independent work. 

ASC/2016/19.6 Programme Approval: BDes (Hons) Sound for the Moving Image 

ASC approved the introduction of the BDes (Hons) Sound for the Moving Image at the Glasgow School of Art commencing in September 2018 subject to:

  • information on how the transition from FE to Year 3 of the Honours degree was to be managed and what additional support for students was envisaged,
  • further information regarding the accreditation process and the extent to which this could be pursued before the programme had commenced. (ASC noted that until accreditation had been confirmed, this should be mentioned in 'Additional Information' section of the documentation.)

The programme was to be delivered on a 2 + 2 model, with entrants joining GSA at the start of Year 3 from FE. The documentation indicated that there would be no exit point or award at the end of Year 3. ASC noted that while it was correct that there should be no formal pathway offering an exit at the end of Year 3, exceptional arrangements could be considered for bona fide Honours degree candidates who were unable to continue with their studies to Year 4. It was also noted that at the beginning of the final paragraph on page 11 of the programme specification the programme was identified as MDes rather than BDes. 

ASC/2016/19.7 Proposal for Extension to Revalidation of MRes Creative Practices 

The MRes Creative Practices had been scheduled for revalidation in 2016-17. However, following reorganisation, the programme now fell under the School of Fine Art for which Periodic Review (incorporating the revalidation process) was not due to take place until 2017-18. Following the recommendation of the GSA Academic Council, ASC therefore approved the request to extend the validation of the MRes Creative Practices until 2017-18. 

ASC/2016/20 Update on Progress on the Recommendations Arising from the Academic Review of Glasgow International College (GIC) held on 26 March 2015  

ASC considered the updated responses to Recommendations 1, 2 and 9 from the Report of the Academic Review of Glasgow International College received in October 2015.

Dr Hutton explained that, in relation to Recommendation 1, a lack of resource was hampering efforts to establish mentoring. ASC agreed that a further update should be provided in one year.

ASC was satisfied that good progress had been made on Recommendation 2 concerning the sharing of data between GIC and the University and that no further reporting was required.

ASC approved the proposed restructuring, such that the remits of the Collegiate Board of Studies and the Joint Academic Management Board would be merged and the former Board would be discontinued.

ASC/2016/21 Items Referred from Christies Education 

 

ASC/2016/21.1 Report from the Joint Board of the University of Glasgow and Christie's Education, held on 7 July 2016 

ASC noted the report from the Joint Board, in particular the discussion under Item 3 regarding the termination of the validation arrangement between Christie's Education and the University of Glasgow. 

ASC/2016/21.2 Report from the Revalidation Event for the History of Art and Art-world Practice Suite of Programmes at Christie's Education 

ASC noted the approval under summer powers of the revalidation of the following programmes for a three-year period commencing in September 2016:

MA (Hons) History of Art and Art-world Practice

MLitt and PgDip History of Art and Art-world Practice Pathways:

Art and Architecture from Antiquity to the Middle Ages and Renaissance

Fine and Decorative Art from Renaissance to Modern

Modern and Contemporary Art

Arts of China

ASC noted that updates on the recommendations made by the Review Panel would be reported to ASC via the Joint Board.

ASC/2016/22 Report on New Courses and Course Amendments Approved by Schools during 2015-16 

ASC received the report on School approvals during 2015-16, noting that the shift from College to School approval for course changes might account for the increase in the number of these proposals in three of the Colleges, as procedures had become less onerous.  

ASC/2016/23 Report on Accreditation by Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies Session 2015-16 

ASC received the summary report on accreditation by PSRBs, noting that full details of the reports were available from Senate Office. 

ASC/2016/24 Date of Next Meeting 

The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 27 January 2017 at 9.30am in the Melville Room

 

Created by: Mrs Ruth Cole