The minutes were accepted as a correct record subject to correction of the Clerk's note (ASC/2016/28.5) in which the link provided referred to improving response rates for EvaSys surveys rather than for PTES, as stated. 

There were no items of Convener's Business. 

Professor Alexander introduced the above report.

PGT Review: Masters assessment and threshold grades

ARSC had considered a paper regarding masters assessment and threshold grades. This explored a range of issues arising from the fact that the 'threshold grade' for PGT programmes was C3 whereas for undergraduate programmes it was D3.

The Code of Assessment currently included the following note on use of the descriptor 'Satisfactory' for grade D in Schedule A:

This gloss is used because it is the lowest grade normally associated with the attainment of an undergraduate award. Postgraduate students should be aware, however, that an average of at least grade C in taught courses is required for progress to the dissertation at Masters level, and students should consult the appropriate degree regulations and course handbooks for the grade they may require to progress to specific awards.

One issue raised by an accrediting body (the Institute of Engineering & Technology) during session 2015-16 was the anomalous situation where two Engineering students, one in fifth year of an integrated masters programme and one on a one year PGT programme, could be taking the same course and be assessed in the same way but be governed by different threshold grades (D3 and C3 respectively). In May 2016 ASC had agreed that in order to address the concerns of the accrediting body, Engineering would be permitted to adopt non-generic regulations governing PGT programmes, using D as the threshold grade. This was regarded as a temporary measure, pending alternative outcomes from the overall review of PGT regulations.

ARSC had considered a number of possible outcomes from the review:

• Adopting grade D as the threshold grade across all taught programmes. Recent feedback from a number of areas and from discussions with MVLS had indicated that such a change was likely to create significant difficulties in terms of external perception and accreditation.
• Adopting C as the threshold grade for the final year of integrated masters degrees, to address the current anomaly noted above. While this would minimise the changes required across the University, there were potential difficulties and confusion arising from the change of threshold midway through programmes, especially where students could be studying level 4 and level 5 courses concurrently.
• Developing distinct schedules of assessment for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. It was noted that the University of Edinburgh's Common Marking Scheme for PGT degrees defined C as 'A good performance, satisfactory for a masters degree' and D as 'A satisfactory performance for the diploma and certificate, but inadequate for a masters degree'. For UG degrees the Common Marking Scheme described D as the basic 'Pass' threshold. The University of Glasgow could develop two schedules, to be adopted on different courses as appropriate. While this offered flexibility, implementation would inevitably involve a heavy administrative burden and would again bring the strong possibility of confusion.

Noting that there were problems associated with all the options, ARSC members had agreed that it was desirable to find a way forward that minimised administrative burden and potential confusion for staff and students. Significant changes to schedules of assessment had extensive knock-on effects in terms of developing and communicating amended verbal descriptors and of needing to edit PIP and associated course documentation.

ARSC members had considered the detail of the proposed non-generic Engineering PGT regulations. While the threshold grade for the proposed non-generic regulations (D3) was lower than for the current generic regulations (C3), the former were more demanding in terms of permitted compensation, minimum grades and eligibility for reassessment. The threshold grade was therefore just one aspect of the overall requirements. Going forward, ARSC was comfortable that non-generic PGT regulations could exceptionally be permitted, with the approval of ASC (e.g. where required by accrediting bodies).

Taking account of the various options, ARSC's view had been that the University should continue to use Schedule A in its current form, and should retain the requirements for progress/award as currently expressed in the generic PGT regulations. Members believed that these conditions were well embedded and on the whole appeared to be understood and accepted. Adopting this approach would mean that the current distinction between the threshold grade on undergraduate programmes and that on generic PGT programmes would remain. As noted above (in relation to the comparison of proposed non-generic Engineering PGT regulations and University generic PGT regulations), the threshold grade was not the only difference between undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. It had therefore been suggested that the footnote to the descriptor 'Satisfactory' in Schedule A could helpfully be expanded. The statement that 'students should consult the appropriate degree regulations and course handbooks for the grade they may require to progress to specific awards' could also incorporate a general reference to limits on compensation, minimum grades and eligibility for reassessment.

At its previous meeting ARSC had identified some aspects of the generic PGT regulations that should be referred to Schools and Colleges for consultation (e.g. requirements for the award of merit and distinction), but members had agreed that its position on threshold grades, as set out above, should be proposed directly to ASC.

ASC members acknowledged the various challenging issues that had been raised. Professor Alexander referred to discussions he had had with staff from a number of different areas of the University from which it was clear that there would be great resistance to a proposal to adopt D as the threshold grade on PGT programmes governed by generic regulations.

Members agreed that as grade D was described as 'Satisfactory', there needed to be a clear articulation of why achieving a D on PGT courses might not satisfy all the requirements for the achievement of a masters degree. While additional information could be included in documentation, it was desirable that the position should be easy to understand for staff and students.

Members were reminded that on undergraduate programmes D was described as Satisfactory but in many areas entry to Honours required C grades (or higher) in the chosen subject(s). The analogous situation on PGT programmes was the requirement for a GPA of 12.0 (equivalent to C3) in the taught courses allowing progress to the dissertation, in which D3 was the satisfactory standard for award of the degree. This could perhaps be more clearly articulated in the footnote to Schedule A in the Code of Assessment.

ASC approved ARSC's proposal that:

• The current position in generic PGT regulations, where C3 was regarded as the 'threshold grade' on taught courses, should be maintained.
• The requirement for progress to the dissertation stage on a PGT programme should remain as a GPA of 12.0.
• Non-generic PGT regulations that used a threshold grade of D should exceptionally be permitted, with the approval of ASC (e.g. where required by accrediting bodies). However, caution should be exercised in permitting departure from the generic regulations. While accrediting bodies had legitimate concerns regarding the requirements to be met by graduating students, the University was an autonomous institution with responsibility for regulating its own academic standards, so any requested departure from generic regulations should be agreed only after full exploration of the issues and options.

Penalties for Late Submission of Coursework: Electronic Submissions

The Code of Assessment set out standard penalties for the late submission of coursework. A two point secondary band reduction was applied to the grade for every late day, with work that was submitted more than five working days late receiving grade H.

A question had arisen regarding the treatment of a submission that was made on time but was found to be incorrect (e.g. incomplete, a wrong file, or the wrong version of a file). Electronic submissions might be checked by the School on receipt or might not be looked at until they were marked. A mistake might therefore be identified at some point during the five day penalty period or after the five days had passed entirely.

It was expected that students required to submit work electronically would be instructed to take due care in completing the submission, and in some areas detailed instructions were given which included the student making a final check of the material submitted. However, ARSC had acknowledged that students did still make mistakes. Where the work in question contributed towards the final degree classification, an H grade could have a significant negative impact.

Anecdotally, ARSC members were aware of variation in how such submissions were currently treated, even within the same School. In some cases students had been asked to make a further submission of the correct material at whatever stage the mistake was identified, with an amnesty on late penalties. In others, it was seen as the student's responsibility to ensure that the correct material was submitted on time and a penalty was applied to any later corrected submission.

The Clerk of Senate had been consulted and his view was that submission of the correct material was the responsibility of the student and that there should therefore be no amnesty on the application of late penalties where a corrected submission was subsequently accepted. There had been a suggestion that students could be asked to submit a paper copy of their work alongside the electronic submission, so that there was a means of checking what the student had intended to submit. However, ARSC members felt that this introduced an unreasonable administrative burden and unless such submissions were formally logged, the system would not be reliable, which could create further problems.

ARSC members had been in agreement that submission of the correct materials was the responsibility of the student and that there was no expectation that staff should carry out a check. It was agreed that it would be helpful to include a note on this issue in the Guide to the Code of Assessment and disseminate information to Schools to ensure consistency of practice.

Action: Senate Office

ASC concurred with these views, noting the importance of a submission system that was clear, reliable and straightforward for students to use. A final step in the submission procedure which required the student to check what had been submitted was useful. The VLE Development Board was aware of the issue.

External Examiner Comments on Assessment 2015-16

ASC noted that ARSC had received a digest of comments concerning assessment that had been raised in External Examiners' reports from 2015-16. It was noted that the issue of discretionary decisions for honours and PGT classifications was still prompting comment from External Examiners but the level of comment had fallen since previous years and a number of comments referred positively to the more detailed guidance in this area that had recently been introduced. It was still the case, however, that some Externals believed that Boards had too little discretion while others believed that they had too much.

No specific issues had been identified as requiring a formal response from ASC.

There was no other business. 

The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 19 May 2017 at 9.30am in the Melville Room.