Senate Office was currently reviewing the operation of Annual Monitoring and had been due to report to the current meeting. This had been delayed, so a report would now be received at the October 2018 meeting. 

ASC had referred to EdPSC the issue of contradictory published statements concerning promotion. Professor Moira Fischbacher-Smith would be taking this forward with Human Resources. 

It was noted that EdPSC had approved ASC's proposals for the introduction of revised criteria for the award of Merit and Distinction in postgraduate taught Masters programmes.  

Professor Alexander presented the report from the meeting of Academic Regulations Sub-Committee held on 4 May 2018. Over the course of session 2017-18 ARSC had considered possible amendments to the Code of Assessment concerning extension requests for the submission of coursework. The Code currently distinguished between, on the one hand, submission deadline extensions of up to three working days, which could be approved locally (normally by course convener alone) and, on the other, requests for deferral of the deadline of more than three working days, which required consideration through the full good cause process. At the Committee's initial discussion on this issue earlier in the year the view had been that there would be advantages to raising the threshold of three working days to five working days. Members had since been reflecting on this issue and consulting with colleagues. ARSC had concluded that the change should be proposed to Academic Standards Committee, for introduction in 2018-19. The change would mean that submission deadlines could be set on any day of the week without students being disproportionately advantaged by extensions depending on where the weekend fell. Also, it was noted that there was some difficulty in students obtaining medical certification for illnesses of less than five working days' duration. This was relevant as the good cause regulations required documentary evidence to be submitted in support of claims.

In making this proposal, ARSC had noted that guidance should remind staff that any extension granted should be commensurate with the circumstances, so that an additional five working days should only be given where genuinely justified by the circumstances.

ASC considered the proposed amended regulations:

• The regulations included the proposed increase from three to five working days of the limit on extensions that could be granted locally by one member of staff. Longer extension requests would be required to be considered under the good cause regulations.
• In connection with the definition of good cause, a new statement was included regarding chronic or long-term issues (footnote 7).
• There was clarification that deferral of submission deadlines by more than five working days should be requested in MyCampus using the same principles as currently applied to incomplete assessment and good cause (s. 16.46 (a)). This function would require development in MyCampus by SLSD.
• Suggested role holders who might act as nominee of Head of School/RI in determining good cause claims were noted (footnote 4).
• While ARSC's view was that no definite timescale should be given for responding to requests for deadline deferrals, the amended regulation indicated that this should be done as soon as reasonably practicable. The regulations also noted that where a request was submitted shortly before a deadline it would not always be possible for a response to be provided before the deadline.
• The regulations moved from using 'he/she' and 'his/her' to 'they' and 'their', which it was proposed should be replicated throughout the University Calendar.

ASC approved the proposed amended regulations subject to the following:

For extensions of up to five working days, which were approved by course convener, it would be good practice for the course convener to notify the Programme Leader of extensions granted, to enable Programme Leaders to identify any students making repeated requests. This might help in identifying possible Fitness to Study issues.

Members also considered that it would be beneficial to require extensions of up to five working days to be processed through MyCampus as well as the good cause claims.

It was suggested that the process for seeking deadline extensions should be entirely separated in the regulations from the process in relation to missed assessment/impaired performance, to avoid confusion. In reality decisions regarding the former would never be made by an Exam Board.

Clerk's note: The approved regulations are shown at Appendix 1, amended so that the process for seeking extensions is separate from the process in relation to missed assessment/impaired performance.

ARSC had considered the question of whether the Code of Assessment should be amended to require independent conveners of Exam Boards. Senior members of staff from cognate areas might fulfil this role and it had been suggested that this would strengthen the process, in particular in relation to ensuring impartiality.

ARSC members considered that the observance of impartiality was of paramount importance and that, while an independent convener would introduce a further layer of oversight, involving a member of staff from another area could introduce other difficulties (primarily to do with logistics and scheduling). The view of the group was that there could be other ways of promoting best practice, such as inviting observers (e.g. Assessment Officer, Learning & Teaching Convener) to Exam Board meetings.

ASC noted this discussion.

ASC received the annual report of external examiner reports 2016-17. Of 471 expected reports, 414 had so far been received. Of these, 39 reports (9%) contained comments requiring a response from the School/Subject Area. Many of these issues appeared to relate to the student experience as opposed to being concerned with standards of learning and teaching, and several had already been picked up through the Annual Monitoring process. ASC noted in particular that there were 23 comments regarding inconsistent or inadequate feedback on assessment and 46 comments concerned with marking and the marking scheme (up from 33 in 2015). ASC requested further information on whether issues relating to feedback came from across the whole institution or were concentrated in particular areas.

Action: Senate Office

Also, ASC was concerned to note 23 comments on staffing levels (inadequate levels of academic and administrative staffing) and while the number of reports containing comments on procedures and documentation had fallen from 22 to 13, it was disappointing that a number of comments had been made regarding poor attendance at Exam Boards.

ASC/2017/49.1.1 School of Law

ASC received the report of the Review of the School of Law which took place on 20-21 February 2018. The Panel had made 13 recommendations to support the School in its reflection and to enhance provision in relation to teaching, learning and assessment. ASC made the following observations:

Recommendation 1: This was concerned with developing graduate attributes within the curriculum and should also be drawn to the attention of LEADS.

Recommendation 3: This recommendation concerned the review of grade descriptors, assessment criteria and ILOs in first and second year, and could usefully be marked as 'for information' for the Dean of Learning and Teaching.

Recommendation 5: As this concerned revising the student handbook to include reference to the return of feedback on assessment within 15 days, it should be highlighted as urgent, to ensure that the changes were made for the 2018-19 handbook.

Recommendation 10: The second part of this recommendation related to the provision of additional support to students returning from their year abroad. ASC questioned this as the report did not indicate that a need for such additional support had been identified. ASC also suggested expanding the recommendation to include reflection on the students' perception that there were differences in the level of difficulty experienced at different institutions, as this had been identified as an issue.

Para 4.1.3: There was a suggestion that the School consider the possibility of introducing a '4 + 1' degree model for Law with Languages. ASC suggested framing this as a recommendation to ensure that the School reported back on its conclusions.

Para 4.3.1: ASC welcomed the suggestion that the School consider the possibility of formally recognising the contribution of Diploma staff through nomination for Teaching Excellence Awards, and suggested that this should be reframed as a recommendation.

Para 4.4.3: ASC noted the suggestion that the School liaise with LEADS to provide GTAs with the opportunity to undertake the Developing as a Teacher in Higher Education course. ASC suggested that this issue be flagged to Nathalie Sheridan in LEADS for consideration of how widely this course could/should be made available to all GTAs.

Key strengths: ASC noted that one of the key strengths listed was recruitment from REACH and Access programmes. It was suggested that the strength could be expanded to include the additional support provided to such students once on the programme.

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

ASC/2017/49.1.2 Management

ASC received the report of the Review of Management which took place on 9 March 2018. The Panel had made 7 recommendations to support the Subject Area in its reflection and to enhance provision in relation to teaching, learning and assessment. ASC made the following observations:

Recommendation 3: This concerned enhancement of the teaching of large classes, and ASC suggested that the recommendation should also be 'for information' for the Head of School.

Recommendation 5: This recommendation concerned developing the Subject's external engagement strategy. It was suggested that this should also be 'for information' for Admissions (External Relations).

Recommendation 7: This recommendation concerned the employment and support of GTAs, and should also be cross-referenced to paragraphs 4.3.11-13.

Para 3.2.3: This paragraph noted a concern that the SER had not sufficiently addressed the issue of support for students with a disability, but also stated that it had not been discussed at the review so the School and Subject should consider how they supported students requiring additional support. It was not clear what action was intended by this. ASC considered that if action was necessary this should be framed as a recommendation which detailed what the Panel felt had not been covered in the SER and what was now required.

Para 3.3.2: The Panel had agreed that work concerning the teaching methods employed at GIC should be prioritised. ASC's view was that it would be helpful to re-frame this as a recommendation in which Management should be actively engaged. It was suggested that the recommendation should also be marked for information for the Joint Academic Management Board. Para 3.3.3 suggested some form of pre-arrival English language course, and ASC noted that consideration of this could be incorporated into the same recommendation.

Para 4.3.9: There was a suggestion that the postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice should be condensed from two years to one and it was stated that it was not possible to complete a 60 credit course in one year. The meaning of this was unclear. ASC's view was that it would be helpful to refer to LEADS the issue of staff not being given recognition for prior experience and to request a statement clarifying the position on the potential for second year entry onto the programme.

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

ASC/2017/49.1.3 Music

ASC received the report of the Review of Music which took place on 13-14 February 2018. The Panel had made 14 recommendations to support the Subject Area in its reflection and to enhance provision in relation to teaching, learning and assessment. ASC made the following observations:

Recommendation 1: this concerned the training and support for GTA markers and was required to be addressed immediately. A response should therefore be received by ASC at the October 2018 meeting.

Recommendation 7: This concerned the need to review aspects of assessment including marking criteria. ASC suggested including consultation with LEADS on this issue. It was also noted in para 4.2.1 that some new forms of assessment were unpopular. ASC suggested including in the recommendation reference to involving students in the review.

Para 3.1.4: The Panel had questioned how the Subject was addressing current low levels of recruitment to PGT programmes. ASC's view was that it would be helpful to have a recommendation requiring a full response on this issue.

Para 3.1.8: This highlighted an issue in relation to students' ability to access performance tuition. It was stated that this may require attention in course documentation/student handbooks. ASC requested that this be framed as a recommendation, for the subject area to look at the possible means of addressing issues of inequality.

Para 3.2.2: It was noted that the student population was largely white and that this suggested international recruitment may be of benefit. ASC's view was that this should also refer to encouraging more diversity in Scottish applicants.

Para 3.2.3: ASC considered that this paragraph required a recommendation for the Subject Area to look at whether the high entry tariff did in fact hinder widening participation and at what alternative measures could be taken to promote widening participation.

Para 4.3.9: The Panel suggested introducing a formal mechanism for the peer observation of teaching. ASC considered that this merited being framed as a recommendation.

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

ASC/2017/49.1.4 School of Physics & Astronomy

ASC received the report of the Review of Physics & Astronomy which took place on 15 February 2018. The Panel had made 10 recommendations to support the School in its reflection and to enhance provision in relation to teaching, learning and assessment. ASC made the following observations:

ASC was pleased to note that the long-standing problems of accessibility of the Kelvin Building were now being addressed.

Recommendation 2: ASC requested clarification of the recommendation in relation to defining a set of minimum expectations for staff and students to ensure consistency in delivery. The recommendation referred to not restricting academic freedom and it was not clear what was meant by this.

Recommendation 3: This concerned the training of GTAs and should also be noted 'for information' of Nathalie Sheridan in LEADS.

Recommendation 10: This related to reporting back to students on the specific issue of the evaluation of the teaching of labs. Paragraph 5.1.2 referred to publicising responses to issues raised through the Staff Student Liaison Committee. ASC suggested that in both cases the use of the class reps website might be useful.

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

ASC/2017/49.2.1 Central & East European Studies

ASC received the six-month update report from the review of Central & East European Studies which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. Overall, the responses were considered adequate, but it was agreed that further updates were required in relation to:

Recommendation 3: ASC had been notified in October 2017 that action had been taken to correct information on the website. However, no response had been provided in relation to the recommendation that a review should be undertaken of the long-term technical support for maintenance and updating of the Subject's webpages.

Recommendation 5: This concerned the availability of training and development opportunities for GTAs and the response indicated that this was being reviewed at School level. No timescale was given for this review and ASC requested a further update when the review was complete. It was also noted that this should be drawn to the attention of Nathalie Sheridan in LEADS.

Recommendation 6: This concerned a clash between an examination and essay, and the response provided by CEES indicated that it had been a one-off and a review of feedback mechanisms would ensure that such a clash would not happen again. It was noted that this appeared to be the same response that had been provided to the Review Panel in relation to the specific issue and that the recommendation had indicated that further action was required. The relevant extract from the Review Report was as follows:

3.4.5 ... The undergraduate students highlighted a clash in the scheduling of the essay due dates and examinations, which prevented feedback being available for use in the examination. The Head of School commented that this had been a one-off situation and had been the result of staff shortages; however, the Panel had noted this issue had appeared in a number of the SSLC minutes. The Review Panel had some concerns regarding the functionality of the SSLC in failing to address this issue and, therefore, recommends that the Subject review its SSLC feedback mechanisms to ensure that such issues are fully addressed and the feedback loop is closed.

ASC therefore requested a further more detailed response.

Recommendation 7 (b): The response addressed the issue of clarity regarding progression from Level 1 but did not address the question of highlighting the benefits of continued study of the subject.

ASC/2017/49.2.2 History of Art

ASC received the six-month update report from the review of History of Art which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. Overall, the responses were considered adequate, but it was agreed that further updates were required in relation to:

Recommendations 3, 4 and 5: These were on-going and further reports would be required by ASC in due course. ASC noted that the response to Recommendation 5 referred to a GTA Review being undertaken by Richard Claughton in HR, and requested clarification of how its remit differed from the review currently being undertaken by LEADS.

Recommendation 9: ASC noted that the response to this recommendation referred to the fact that the Subject received no support from Disability Service for Visual Tests, and suggested that they should be treated in the same way as formal exams. ASC requested further clarification from the Subject on the nature of these assessments and from Disability Service as to the advice or support that could be provided.

Recommendation 10: The recommendation concerned the relocation and centralisation of the School administration. The response indicated that this was now expected to take place during the summer of 2018. ASC requested a further response on the impact of this move for May 2019.

ASC/2017/49.2.3 School of Psychology

ASC received the six-month update report from the review of Psychology which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. Overall, the responses were considered adequate, but it was agreed that further updates were required in relation to:

Recommendations 7, 8, 9 and 11: The actions were incomplete and further responses were required.

ASC/2017/49.2.4 School of Life Sciences

The School had been asked to submit to ASC a rationale for its decision to introduce a weighting of 25% junior honours : 75% senior honours for the calculation of honours classifications. ASC was satisfied with the rationale provided.

ASC received the report on the validation event for the programmes under review. The Panel had noted that the new programme would be delivered largely by two semi-retired members of staff. ASC echoed the Panel's comment that succession planning should be kept under review but also added that careful consideration should be given to the importance of maintaining staff development of the current staff.

Having considered the report of the validation event, ASC confirmed approval for revalidation for a period of six years from September 2019 of the following programmes:

Bachelor of Theology

Master of Theology (Research)

Master of Theology in Scottish Church History and Theology (Taught)

ASC confirmed approval for validation for a period of six years from September 2018 for the following programme:

Master of Theology in Missiology (Taught)

ASC received the report of the Joint Board meeting held on 2 February 2018 and approved the membership and remit 2017-18. 

ASC received the report from the Periodic Review (2017-18) of the School of Fine Art held in March 2018. The Review Panel had issued three Conditions to be addressed prior to the start of the 2018-19 academic session, though these did not impact on the running of the programmes and therefore did not affect the revalidations.

ASC approved the revalidation for a period of six years commencing in September 2018 of the following programmes:

• Master of Fine Art
• MLitt Curatorial Practice (Contemporary Art)
• MLitt Fine Art Practice
• MRes Creative Practices
• BA (Honours) Fine Art.

At its meeting in October 2017 ASC had agreed to give in-principle approval to a major programme amendment on the MSc Visualisation programme. ASC noted that the Programme Team had met all the conditions set out at the GSA Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee Programme Approval meeting held in February 2018. ASC therefore agreed to approve the proposed major programme amendment to the MSc Visualisation programme, to take effect from session 2019-20. 

In relation to items ASC/2017/51.3-51.5, ASC was asked to give in-principle approval for the introduction of proposed new postgraduate taught Masters programmes. Under the new approval process agreed by ASC in May 2017, after ASC confirmed in-principle approval GSA would be responsible for taking the matter forward to full validation. In relation to all three proposed programmes ASC's view was that insufficient information had been provided in terms of the structure of the programme and the assessment to allow in-principle agreement to be confirmed. Dialogue would be required between GSA and the University's Academic Collaborations Office to ensure that there was a clear understanding going forward of what was required to enable ASC to give in-principle approval.

The programme proposal for MDes Silversmithing and Jewellery indicated that it would be a full-time programme lasting 24 months, but no information was provided as to the total number of credits associated with the programme or how the courses and the associated assessment would be structured across the two years. ASC noted a concern had been raised (page 9, section d.) concerning a potential lack of space for non-bench work, and that this would require a review of the use of space for studio and workshop. The scale of this issue and the actions required to address it were not clear.

ASC was currently unable to give in-principle approval to the programme proposal and requested that further information be provided.

ASC noted that the programme proposal for MLitt Art, Society and Culture provided much fuller information on the structure of the programme and the proposed assessment. However, Appendix A Structure and Delivery was not included and ASC required to see this in order to consider the schedule of teaching and assessment.

ASC was currently unable to give in-principle approval to the programme proposal and requested that further information be provided.

ASC received the programme proposal and noted that there was limited information on the structure of the programme and its assessment. The concern flagged at section 15 b, page 10, concerning facilities being stretched and the need to appropriately manage students' expectations was noted. ASC would welcome assurance from the School that this would be fully addressed through the later stages of approval.

ASC was currently unable to give in-principle approval to the programme proposal and requested that further information be provided.

ASC received the report from the Joint Liaison Committee held on 5 March 2018 and approved the remit and membership 2017-18 and the appointment of GSA staff members as Associate University Lecturers. 

ASC received the report from the meeting of the Joint Liaison Committee held on 23 March 2018 and approved the remit and membership 2017-18 and the appointment of SRUC staff members as Associate University Lecturers. 

ASC received the report of the validation meeting for the BSc/BSc (Hons) Veterinary Nursing. It was noted that the programme was undergoing accreditation by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and that special arrangements were being put in place for additional monitoring by the University to be carried out in relation to RCVS requirements.

ASC noted that all conditions identified in the Validation Report had been satisfied except for one concerning the requirements set out in the provisional accreditation report of the RCVS, and these needed to be addressed by the end of June to ensure that accreditation was confirmed before commencement of the programme in September 2018.

ASC agreed to approve the BSc/BSc (Hons) in Veterinary Nursing for a period of six years, commencing in September 2018, subject to the programme team satisfying the provisional accreditation requirements of the RCVS.

ASC received the report from the Institution-led Review of Education Programmes in the Agriculture and Business Management Department at Scotland's Rural College and the response of the Programme Teams to the conditions for revalidation set by the Panel. ASC was satisfied that SRUC had provided clear and thorough responses to the issues raised. As all conditions had now been resolved, ASC approved the revalidation for six years from session 2018-19 of the following programmes:

• BSc (Hons) Agriculture
• BA (Hons) Rural Business Management
• MSc Agricultural Professional Practice
• MSc Organic Farming

ASC received and noted the update report on the responses to recommendations made at the Programme Approval Meeting held on 10 May 2017. 

ASC received and noted the update report on the responses to recommendations made at the Programme Approval Meeting held on 10 May 2017. 

Friday 5 October 2018

Friday 23 November 2018

Friday 25 January 2019

Friday 22 March 2019

Friday 24 May 2019

ASC was asked to consider a revision to the wording of section 16.13 of the Code of Assessment. This provision was concerned with the relaxation of (1) the normal rules on the eligibility for reassessment and (2) the operation of capping, where students required an improved GPA in order to achieve a minimum graduating curriculum for an ordinary/designated degree. The wording of the regulation was currently unclear as to whether the relaxed rule on capping applied to all reassessment or only to the reassessment permitted under this regulation. ASC agreed that there should be no capping in relation to up to 60 credits, whether the reassessment had been permitted under s. 16.13 or under the normal rules concerning eligibility for reassessment.

ASC agreed the following amended wording of the regulation - see Appendix 2.