ASC had agreed at its January 2018 meeting to make a strong recommendation that reports on annual monitoring for undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes should be received by ASC together at one point. This recommendation had been forwarded for consideration in the on-going review of the annual monitoring process being undertaken by Senate Office, which was due to report back to ASC at its May 2018 meeting. 

The College of Arts Annual Monitoring summary had referred to some concerns in relation to student placements (e.g. insurance) and the Convener had asked members to consider whether there was evidence of similar concerns elsewhere. None was noted. 

The Convener had received a further response from Human Resources concerning the apparent contradiction between published statements concerning the requirements for promotion of academic staff. Although the response indicated that revisions had been made and the website updated, there was still a lack of coherence between the two statements particularly in relation to the relationship between completion of the early career programme and the promotion decision. In addition, the agreed statement referred to in recent correspondence from HR appeared to be identical to the one which had prompted ASC's request for a further response. ASC expressed its concern and frustration that this apparently inconsistent guidance, not directly addressed by the joint statement, continued to exist two years after the inconsistency had been raised in the Periodic Subject Review Report. 

At its November 2017 meeting ASC had received the programme approval report from The Glasgow School of Art concerning the proposed replacement for the former MEd in Education in the Creative Disciplines. ASC had agreed to validate the programme commencing in September 2018. Senate Office had subsequently been advised that this date should be corrected to January 2018. 

The Convener advised that Dr Margaret Martin had agreed to assume the role of Convener of the Working Group. 

A representative from the project team was expected to attend the May 2018 meeting of ASC to brief members in relation to the Assessment and Feedback project. 

ASC received the report, which had not been available for the January 2018 meeting. The College Quality Officer, Professor Evans, introduced the report, noting that a large number of areas of innovative and good practice were highlighted. Issues identified in the previous session as requiring action had either been addressed or work was on-going. The issues noted in the current report as requiring attention at University level were not dissimilar to those arising in the other Colleges. The suitability and booking of teaching accommodation had been raised again. In addition, in relation to continuing concerns regarding student mental health there was demand for more guidance on processes such as Good Cause, extensions/suspensions and Fitness to Study, and the management of chronic conditions. It was suggested that this might be an area to be explored by the new Student Experience Committee. Other issues highlighted included support for students for whom English was not their first language, the allocation of Masters project supervision and the recognition of this work in the PDR process, and the need for better information to be made available by External Relations on tuition fee increases and expected student numbers in order to assist with local planning. ASC agreed that these matters should be added to the issues referred to Senate Office from the Annual Monitoring Summaries considered at the January 2018 meeting.

Action: Clerk

As part of the routine review of the generic degree regulations for taught Masters degrees, ARSC had considered the regulations governing the award of merit and distinction on PGT programmes. The regulations governing the award of merit and distinction were last amended in 2009-10 in response to concern that the existing criteria made it too easy to achieve these awards. The current regulations are included at Appendix 1.

ARSC had received responses to a consultation that had been sent to all Schools and RIs. There were three questions concerning different aspects of the current regulations. A total of 23 responses were received.

Question 1: Is it appropriate to require candidates to satisfy separate requirements in relation to the dissertation and the taught component? Would it be preferable to stipulate an overall average performance with some lesser standard (if any) required in relation to the taught component and/or dissertation?

A range of responses had been received with a small majority indicating a preference for considering an overall grade point average across the full 180 credits of the programme rather than considering separate requirements in relation to the dissertation and the taught component. Reference was made to candidates whose overall performance was strong but who failed to satisfy the current criteria for merit/distinction by narrowly missing either the taught courses or dissertation requirement. Concerns included students being unable to overcome the impact of a weaker performance in semester 1, and students whose overall performance was very strong being denied the classification by a dissertation that just missed the relevant threshold.

ARSC therefore proposed amending the regulations so that eligibility for the awards would depend on achieving a combined GPA across all 180 credits of 15 for merit and 18 for distinction. Additionally, students would still be required to achieve a minimum performance both on the taught courses and on the dissertation/independent project. ARSC suggested two options:

Option 1: for merit students required to achieve a GPA of at least 12 (C3) in the taught courses and a grade of at least C3 in the dissertation/independent project; and for distinction a GPA of at least 15 (B3) in the taught courses and a grade of at least grade B3 in the dissertation/independent project.

Or

Option 2: for merit students required to achieve a GPA of at least 14 (C1) in the taught courses and a grade of at least C1 in the dissertation/independent project; and for distinction a GPA of at least 17 (B1) in the taught courses and a grade of at least grade B1 in the dissertation/independent project.

ASC was persuaded of the case for amending eligibility for the award of merit and distinction to relate to a measure of performance across the programme as a whole, allowing a slightly weaker performance in either the taught course component or the dissertation/independent project. ASC's view was that Option 2 was preferable, as it provided more limited scope for weaker performance in one component to be compensated by stronger performance in the other.

Question 2: Is it appropriate to allow discretion in relation to the taught component but not to the dissertation? Is the current discretionary range appropriate?

Again responses on this question were split, with some maintaining that the dissertation grade should be an absolute requirement. However, in light of the conclusion reached on Question 1, ASC's view was that discretion should be applied in relation to the GPA achieved across the full 180 credits of the programme. It was also agreed that the current discretionary ranges should be retained.

Question 3: Should performance in reassessment contribute to eligibility for merit and distinction?

Responses to this question were almost unanimous in support of retaining the current position where only performance demonstrated at the first attempt should contribute to eligibility for merit and distinction. No change was proposed by ARSC, and ASC was in agreement with this position.

ASC agreed to propose to EdPSC the adoption of the amended regulations concerning eligibility for the award of merit and distinction as shown at Appendix 1.

At its January 2018 meeting ASC had received a report from the Adam Smith Business School concerning its current review of the MBA. The ASBS had asked for feedback on what was permitted under the term 'dissertation'. In other institutions MBA students might undertake a company project, business case study or similar. A range of such options was under consideration to make the MBA more attractive to the market, but these needed to be consistent with University regulations.

The ASBS was proposing the following Short Description of the Dissertation (Project) Course: 'As a capstone course, it will show how a student integrates material covered in core and elective courses, and conducts an in-depth investigation of an issue that is applicable and relevant to business and/or management, theoretically underpinned and using appropriate methods to show rigour in its approach and development.' ASC had been satisfied that the proposal was consistent with the requirement for a 'dissertation or other substantial independent work' set out in the PGT regulations but had asked ARSC to reflect on whether further guidance could be published on the features required in a 'substantial independent work' in order to ensure appropriate academic rigour. Currently the PGT regulations simply stated:

4.1 In order to qualify for an award in respect of the programmes specified in §11 and §12, a candidate must complete minimum credits as follows:

i) For the award of a Masters degree: 180 credits, which includes both taught courses and a 60 credit (or more) dissertation or other substantial independent work.

It was reported that ARSC members had considered it most important that the term 'independent' was emphasised. Their view was that the current definition encapsulated what was required but it would be helpful to indicate that there was a wide range of possibilities falling under the term 'substantial independent work'. ASC therefore agreed the following amended wording:

4.1 In order to qualify for an award in respect of the programmes specified in §11 and §12, a candidate must complete minimum credits as follows:

i) For the award of a Masters degree: 180 credits, which includes both taught courses and a 60 credit (or more) substantial independent work which should be appropriately supervised and may take the form of a dissertation or project.

ASC/2017/39.1.1 Accounting & Finance

ASC received the six-month update from the review of Accounting and Finance which detailed the responses and progress made to date in implementing the recommendations.

Recommendation 1: ASC noted the on-going work to communicate assessment criteria and the link to ILOs, and to promote the provision of high quality feedback. ASC requested a further update in one year on the effectiveness of this work.

Recommendation 2: This concerned critical writing and language support for international students. ASC noted that no response had yet been received from the Head of College.

Recommendation 3: In order to comply with the University's Guidelines on Moderation and Second Marking, the Panel had recommended that all PGT dissertations be double- or second-marked. The response indicated that this recommendation had not been implemented because the School had been given permission by the Clerk of Senate not to comply with the normal requirement. Instead strong moderation practices were in place, and this arrangement had been approved by the external examiners.

The Clerk of Senate advised ASC that some years ago, in the face of a very large volume of dissertations and limited staff resource, Accounting and Finance had exceptionally been given permission to rely on moderation and sampling. ASC's view was that given the passage of time since that agreement, it would be timely to review the position. Further information should therefore be sought from Accounting and Finance concerning the volume of dissertations, staffing levels and further detail on the current practice in relation to sampling and moderation, and the training of adjunct staff for marking.

Recommendation 5: This recommendation concerned PGT Advising. The PSR Panel Convener had suggested that a further update should be requested in one year. ASC agreed with this view and requested that the update should include comment on why administrative staff rather than academic staff were being used in an Advising role.

ASC/2017/39.1.2 Information Studies (formerly HATII)

ASC received the six-month update report from the review of Information Studies which detailed the responses and progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. It was noted that the subject area had been facing particularly challenging staffing issues and, while these were now being addressed, progress in relation to a number of the recommendations had been limited by that context. ASC was pleased to note the plans now in place to address the recommendations and requested an update in another year on Recommendations 3, 4, 5, 6-8 and 11. The PSR Panel Convener had highlighted to ASC the Head of Subject's response to Recommendation 12 regarding the provision of guidance and support in relation to the Early Career Development Programme. The Head of Subject's view was that conflicting information was being given and that progress in resolving this required input from the Director of Pay and Performance. ASC agreed that a response should be sought from the latter. 

ASC/2017/39.1.2 School of Life Sciences

ASC received the six-month update report from the review of the School of Life Sciences which detailed the responses and progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. Detailed information had been provided but further information was required in relation to the following Recommendations:

Recommendation 1: ASC was pleased to note the wide-ranging plan for supporting the development and delivery of its undergraduate degree programmes, particularly with reference to the involvement of research institute staff. ASC requested an update in a year's time on the impact of this plan.

Recommendation 4: The School response focused on a number of different aspects of internationalisation, but ASC requested a further response with a greater focus on promotion of study abroad opportunities.

Recommendation 5: ASC was pleased to note the School's move away from calculation of the Honours classification being based solely on results achieved in Senior Honours, but requested a further response outlining the rationale for limiting the contribution of Junior Honours to 25% and describing any plans for reviewing this in future. (Response requested for May 2018 meeting of 2018.)

Recommendation 9: The response to this recommendation described different categories of information being made available to new staff but ASC requested a further response with information on what was included in the induction programme.

ASC/2017/39.2.1 English Literature

ASC received a detailed updated response to Recommendation 6 concerning the embedding of graduate attributes across the curriculum. The subject area was developing a subject-specific graduate attributes matrix and working on embedding graduate attributes into course ILOs, and developing alumni events.

ASC agreed that no further update was required. 

ASC/2017/39.2.2 Scottish Literature

ASC received an updated response on two recommendations:

Recommendation 5: while the subject area continued its good efforts to promote and facilitate study abroad, the lack of other HE institutions offering the required courses meant that this was going to continue to be a particularly challenging area.

Recommendation 8: further information was provided on contributions to interdisciplinary teaching.

ASC agreed that no further updates were required.