The Convener advised that EdPSC had approved ASC's proposals to maintain grade C3 as the threshold grade on PGT programmes but to permit, on an exceptional basis, non-generic regulations where D3 was the threshold grade. EdPSC had confirmed that the regulations for the joint programmes delivered by Engineering and the Adam Smith Business School should be approved by ASC. For programmes commencing in autumn 2017 this would require Convener's action.  

EdPSC had noted the range of issues being raised through PSR concerning GTAs. It had been agreed that these would be referred to the Assessment and Feedback Working Group. The issues raised in the PSRs that had taken place in the current session should be similarly referred.

Action: Senate Office

Following approval of proposals to maintain grade C3 as the threshold grade on PGT programmes, ARSC proposed an amended form of wording to be used in the footnote to Schedule A's 'Satisfactory' descriptor, as follows:

† This gloss is used because it is the lowest grade normally associated with the attainment of an undergraduate award. Undergraduate students should be aware that progress to most honours programmes requires a grade above D in certain courses. Postgraduate students should be aware that on most programmes an average above D in taught courses is required for progress to the dissertation at Masters level. Students should consult the appropriate degree regulations and course handbooks for the grades they require to progress to specific awards.

The proposed amended wording introduced reference to requirements for grades above D applying to both undergraduate and PGT students whereas it had previously only referred to PGT students. ARSC considered that 'progress to honours' was now a more commonly used expression than 'entry to honours' and that it was also preferable given the recent discussion regarding the use of different grades being required for 'progress' and award, both on undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. It was noted that the generic undergraduate regulations referred to the requirements for 'entry to' honours. A check would need to be made on where other such usage occurred in regulations and other documentation.

Action: Senate Office

ASC approved the proposed amended wording.

Following comments made in an external examiner's report, ARSC had considered how exceeding word length in coursework should be penalised. There was currently no regulation or formal policy in this area and it was recognised that what was appropriate might vary between disciplines/tasks.

ARSC's view was that there were two possible approaches:

1. The complete assignment would be read but the grade awarded would reflect the fact that the student had failed to stay within the word limit, and the greater the additional words used, the greater the significance for the grade. ARSC members had considered that the significance of keeping to a given word length for any particular task was an academic judgment.
2. The assignment would be read up to the point that the word limit was reached and no further, and a grade awarded. As was noted in the external examiner's original comment, this would often lead to the conclusion being missed in its entirety or in part.

The first of the options could be applicable for most coursework but there were certain tasks where compliance with the maximum word count was critical in which case option 2 might be justified.

In discussion, ASC members suggested that another approach was also acceptable: to view failure to comply with the word limit as a failure to comply with one of the requirements of the task (similar to failing to submit the work in accordance with the published deadline). In this case a general tariff for reducing grades by a specified amount (a 'penalty') could be implemented.

It was also agreed that the chosen approach should be implemented consistently for all students in a cohort and it should be made clear whether there was some leeway in the word limit, e.g. +/- 10%, with sensitivity to the fact that word counts operated differently in different programs, and clarity was required as to what should be included in the word count. Whatever approach was adopted, this should be advertised and explained clearly in advance.  

As noted above, ARSC was developing guidance on Good Cause which was intended to be made available to students and explained the main principles of the regulations, including some which appeared not to be well understood (e.g. the fact that grades would never be inflated as a result of a Good Cause claim). The SRC had agreed to assist in disseminating the guidance.

ARSC had previously noted that the regulations on Incomplete Assessment and Good Cause did not fully cover submission of claims in advance of the relevant assessment date. As a result, the Good Cause process in MyCampus did not offer a specific route for the submission of early claims. Where such early claims were submitted it was important that the student should receive a prompt response.

ARSC had discussed the best way of ensuring that early claims were brought to the attention of the Head of School/RI or nominee as soon as possible. It was agreed that students should submit a full claim to MyCampus in the normal way but that they should also alert a relevant member of staff such as their Advisor to ensure that the claim was brought to the attention of relevant staff promptly. This would be indicated in a footnote in the Code as well as in other guidance documents. ARSC would be reviewing the operation of early claims (and the relevant regulations) during session 2017-18.

ASC/2016/50.1.1 Accounting & Finance

ASC received the report of the Review of Accounting and Finance which took place place on 3 March 2017. The review had concluded that Accounting and Finance was a successful Subject within the University where there was strong commitment to enhancing the quality of teaching provision and where there was a strong sense of community particularly at undergraduate level. The Panel had made a small number of recommendations, many of which arose from the challenges of supporting a large international postgraduate population.

Recommendation 2 concerned the need for more critical writing and language support for international students. This was noted to be for action by the Head of Subject but members considered that this should be addressed also at College level.

Recommendation 6: concerned improving access to Advising support. ASC's view was that this could also be referred for the attention of the Deans of Graduate Studies Committee.

General points:

s. 3.1.1: ASC noted a suggestion that 'there could be greater standardisation to ensure that students entered the (MAcc) degree programme with similar levels of experience'. ASC was unclear what 'standardisation' was envisaged given the emphasis on international recruitment.

s. 3.3.8: The fact that 95% of graduates in employment were in a professional or managerial job was noted as Good Practice. ASC considered that an indicator alone was not Good Practice, though the work that had led to this achievement might be.

s. 3.4.4: The NSS satisfaction rate of 94% was noted to be Good Practice. Again ASC considered that, while this was note-worthy, in itself it was not Good Practice.

s. 4.3.3: ASC noted the statement that 40% of PGT dissertations were second-marked. This did not comply with the Guidelines on Moderation and Second Marking which indicated that all dissertations should either be double- or second- marked. ASC considered that a recommendation should be added to address this point, particularly in view of the reliance on external staff for supervision and marking.

Subject to these amendments, the report was approved for onward transmission to relevant officers responsible for taking forward the recommendations. 

ASC/2016/50.1.2 Central & Eastern European Studies

ASC received the report of the Review of Central and Eastern European Studies which took place on 22 February 2017. The Review Panel had concluded that this was a thriving subject area displaying creativity, flexibility and ambition in its enquiry-based and research-led teaching and learning provision.

Recommendation 1: This indicated that the subject should review its practice of double marking all honours and PGT work and introduce a form of targeted moderation. ASC noted that in the Life Sciences PSR report (below) the practice of second marking all assessment contributing to the final degree classification was identified as Good Practice. Members requested that Senate Office review these apparently contradictory findings to determine whether additional context should be added to the two reports justifying the different approaches or whether either of the conclusions required reconsideration.

Similarly Recommendation 1 suggested that the open door policy be reviewed in view of the pressures that it created for staff, while the PSR report for HATII (below) identified as Good Practice the high level of support provided by staff including use of an open door policy (Good Practice 2).

Recommendation 3: ASC noted that this required urgent action to correct information available on the website and a response should therefore be provided to ASC's meeting in September 2017. The recommendation should be noted as also being for the attention of the College as the website was maintained at College level.

Subject to these comments, the report was approved for onward transmission to relevant officers responsible for taking forward the recommendations.

ASC/2016/50.1.3 Information Studies (formerly HATII)

ASC received the report of the Review of Information Studies (formerly known as Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute) which took place on 7 February 2017. The Panel had concluded that despite significant challenges and increasing student numbers and staffing shortfalls, the Subject had continued to build on its strengths in a redevelopment and expansion of taught provision, had aligned research with teaching and had included innovative pedagogical tools to enhance provision.

Recommendation 1: ASC requested that the recommendation, regarding clarification of policies and regulations (including the Code of Assessment) should also cross-refer to the issues raised at s. 4.2.6 (operation of borderline discretion) and s. 4.2.7 (review of assessment undertaken on study abroad).

Good Practice 1: ASC questioned whether the achievement of double-accreditation should be noted as Good Practice rather than something worthy of note.

s. 2.4.4: ASC's view was that the development of a five-year learning and teaching strategy should be incorporated into a recommendation, to be consistent with the approach taken in the Life Sciences report.

s. 3.2.2: ASC suggested that the development of a contingency plan to meet the needs of students with disabilities should be addressed in conjunction with Estates and Buildings and should be expressed clearly as being concerned with those with mobility impairments.

s. 3.3.5: The section concerning use of letters for grading required clarification.

s. 4.1.4: The non-availability of annual monitoring reports should be addressed as a recommendation.

s. 4.1.9: ASC considered that the encouragement to promote Study Abroad should be upgraded to a recommendation and should also explicitly address correction of the inaccurate information currently available.

s. 4.4.6: ASC considered that the need for greater engagement with early career staff to provide appropriate guidance and support regarding the Early Career Development Programme should be upgraded to a recommendation.

s. 5.1.1: While the Panel expressed confidence in the procedures for maintaining academic standards, this section should also acknowledge the issues to be addressed under Recommendation 1.

Subject to these comments, the report was approved for onward transmission to relevant officers responsible for taking forward the recommendations. 

ASC/2016/50.1.4 School of Life Sciences

ASC received the report of the Review of Life Sciences which took place on 2 and 3 March 2017. The Panel had concluded that the School was dedicated to providing the best learning and teaching environment for its students. The School was under new management who were committed to enhancing the School's position and creating a strong School identity with a new learning and teaching strategy.

s. 2.4.5: The Panel noted how concerns regarding the relationship between the School and the Research Institutes (particularly in relation to provision of teaching) were being addressed and that the situation was improving. ASC requested that a recommendation to continue this work be included, with a report on further progress to be provided to ASC in six months.

Recommendation 4: The recommendation related to development of an internationalisation strategy but it was also important that the lack of understanding demonstrated by students (s. 2.5.2) should be addressed.

s. 3.2.3: A recommendation should be included to address the fact that 36% of staff were yet to complete the compulsory University Equality and Diversity training.

s. 4.1.9: A recommendation should be included to address the issue of staff not complying with the requirement to provide lectures slides.

s. 4.3.3: The Panel had commented on the SSR ratio of 1:250 for administrative staff being very high. ASC questioned whether there was a recognised norm for the University.

Subject to these comments, the report was approved for onward transmission to relevant officers responsible for taking forward the recommendations. 

ASC/2016/50.1.5 School of Psychology

ASC received the report of the Review of Psychology which took place on 1 February 2017. The Panel concluded that there was a clear culture of pedagogical development with commitment to enhancing provision. There was a strong sense of community between staff and students as well as involvement in the wider university.

Recommendation 1: In continuing with curriculum review ASC requested that this recommendation should explicitly refer to the various different degree pathways, and that the three Deans of Learning and Teaching should be involved.

Recommendation 2: This referred to maximising opportunities for research and scholarship arising from curriculum review. ASC requested clarification of this recommendation as it was unclear as to what was being referred to.

s. 3.1.3: ASC suggested that the work on providing information to applicants on alternative pathways should be carried out in conjunction with MaRIO.

Subject to these comments, the report was approved for onward transmission to relevant officers responsible for taking forward the recommendations.

ASC received a report of the review of the programmes in the subject group Horticulture and Landscape at SRUC, held on 15 and 16 February 2017, in which six conditions and nine recommendations were highlighted. ASC also received a report setting out SRUC's responses to the conditions, which had all been addressed. ASC noted that the recommendations were being addressed and requested a further update in six months, including a report on what scrutiny there had been of the revision to module descriptors, as required under Condition F. On the basis of the information provided, ASC approved the revalidation of the following programmes for six years commencing 2017-18:

BSc (Hons) Horticulture

BSc (Hons) Horticulture and Plantmanship

BSc (Hons) Garden and Greenspace Design

ASC received the report from the above meeting and approved the membership and remit of the Joint Board for 2016-17 and the list of new SRUC staff members appointed as Associate University Lecturers. 

ASC received the report of the Joint Board meeting held on 23 November 2016 and approved the membership and remit 2016-17. ASC approved the Statement of Intent for the proposed introduction of the taught Master of Theology in Missiology for commencement in September 2018. The Statement indicated that modules would be delivered on a 'guided study' basis, and ASC requested that further information on this be provided during the full approval process. 

ASC received the above report and approved the membership and remit of the Joint Liaison Committee for 2016-17 and the list of new Associate University Lecturers. 

ASC received a paper proposing an amendment to the wording of the regulations for the PhD by Published Work. GSA's understanding was that it was not permitted to digitise the published works which were being examined and therefore proposed the amendment that such works would only need to be submitted in print copy.

ASC members questioned whether there was such a restriction on digitising works for this purpose and therefore agreed that advice should be sought from the Research Strategy and Innovation Office.

Action: Senate Office

ASC received an update report on the recommendations from the above review. Good progress had been made in relation to the recommendations. However, Recommendations 1, 2, 8 and 10 remained incomplete and further updates in six months were requested. The report indicated that Recommendation 3 was complete. However, it was not clear from the description of activities whether an Action Plan had been put in place. Clarification on this point was also requested.  

The MSc Environmental Architecture had been approved by ASC for introduction in September 2016. ASC received an update report on progress made in relation to two recommendations made at the GSA Undergraduate and Postgraduate Approval meeting held on 10 February 2016. In both cases (development of a part-time version of the programme and completion of an Equality Impact Assessment) work was on-going and further updates were requested in six months. 

ASC received a paper outlining proposed changes to the programme and course approval procedures for GSA, reflecting changes which had been implemented to the University's own approval procedures. The proposal acknowledged the maturity of the partnership with GSA and was one element of the work associated with streamlining the administrative processes between the two institutions.

ASC approved the proposal, which would allow GSA to achieve approval for new programmes or major programme amendments within one academic session. GSA's Academic Council would assume responsibility for full approval following ASC's in principle approval. Non-standard proposals would still require ASC approval following a GSA validation event, and collaborative programmes would continue to be referred to ASC as at present.