ASC received an update from Dr Nathalie Sheridan, who was leading the project looking at the role, training and support of Graduate Teaching Assistants.

The University Services Innovation Fund project was supporting four interns working on the project. They had collated Codes of Practice and Policies from other Russell Group Institutions, liaised with the RAs from the LTDF project, and participated in a Symposium to identify key themes that should be covered by a GTA code of practice. Feedback had been gathered and consultation with key stakeholders was on-going. Currently the aim was to produce a final draft by May 2019.

The following response had been received concerning Writing Days and Writing Support Provision: A concern had been raised in the School of Education that part-time students were disadvantaged as a result of writing days and writing support provision only being offered during the week. The response received from the Learning Enhancement and Academic Development Service (LEADS) noted that there was a limit to what could practicably be offered. A dedicated writing day for part-time students in Education was offered before the main teaching period started, specifically to try to ensure that those students were not disadvantaged more than was unavoidable. It was also reported that a growing on-line support resource was available and that staff were willing to provide extra support via email.

Responses in relation to Moodle and student mental health would be received at a future meeting.

At its meeting in May 2018, ASC had asked whether issues relating to feedback on assessment had been raised across the whole institution or were concentrated in particular areas. Further information provided by Senate Office showed that the comments had come from several different areas of the University. Where a number of comments had been made, the Schools in question had provided appropriate responses and work was on-going to address the concerns. 

Ms Butcher reported that EdPSC had discussed concerns relating to a lack of understanding of the Good Cause and Fitness to Study procedures. Senate Office was in the process of developing training and further guidance with a view to promoting a better understanding of the rules and achieving consistency in their application across the University. Staff and students would be involved in the activities. 

It was noted that Professor Fischbacher-Smith had been asked to take forward with HR the issue of contradictory published statements concerning promotion criteria, and ASC agreed that an update on this should be requested.

Action: Clerk

ASC received the summary of recommendations and good practice/commendations arising from the Periodic Subject Reviews carried out in session 2017-18.

A total of 89 recommendations had been made from the seven reviews. The Summary noted actions taken to date in relation to support and training for GTAs, assessment and feedback, and support for students and for staff.

There had been 64 areas of good practice of which 27 were identified as commendations (areas of exceptional practice). Examples of good practice were noted under the themes of enhancement of the student experience, enhancement of learning and teaching, and context and strategy.

ASC noted the overview and was satisfied that no additional University-wide action was required.

ASC/2018/5.2.1 Short Courses

ASC received the report of the Review of Short Courses which took place on 1 and 2 May 2018. The Review Panel had concluded that Short Courses demonstrated a clear commitment to excellence in learning and teaching, and congratulated the Director and staff of Short Courses on bringing the unit from a position of financial uncertainty in 2014 to near break-even in the space of four years, while also fulfilling the expectations of an extremely diverse student body. The Panel had made 13 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.

ASC noted that a number of recommendations related to the support and training of part-time teaching staff. This was to be welcomed but it would inevitably have resource implications. It was suggested that there could be useful linkages between the work being undertaken in relation to the training and support of GTAs across the University and the additional support and training envisaged for Short Courses staff.

Recommendation 8: this concerned the design and delivery of assessment and feedback. ASC suggested incorporating into the recommendation a reference to liaison with LEADS.

Recommendation 13: ASC was disappointed to note the lack of progress on the issue of identifying accessible teaching accommodation for Practical Art courses, as this had been raised at the previous review. The Committee would take particular notice of the first response from Estates and Buildings on this matter.

Paragraph 3.4.3: It was noted that Short Courses had identified the importance of students feeling integral to the unit's development going forward and that there were particular challenges closing the feedback loop for students. It was also noted that as Short Courses moved to a fully coherent qualifications system such feedback would become more important. The report suggested that the feedback mechanisms should be kept under review. ASC's view was that, given the importance of this activity, the suggestion should be upgraded to a recommendation.

Key strengths and commendations: the support offered to Access to students was highlighted. ASC's view was that, on the basis of the content of the report, this could be extended to all Short Course students.

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

ASC/2018/5.2.2 School of Modern Languages & Cultures

The Review of SMLC had been postponed due to the inclement weather in spring 2018. The Review was rearranged and took place in May 2018. The report was scheduled to have been approved under Summer Powers but the drafting and confirmation process was delayed due to conflicts with summer leave and other work that had not been accounted for in the original timescales. The report was expected to come to the November 2018 meeting of ASC.

ASC/2018/5.3.1 Accounting & Finance

ASC received updated responses to two recommendations arising from the Review of Accounting and Finance held on 3 March 2017.

Recommendation 3 stated that the subject area should comply with the University's Guidelines on Moderation and Second Marking, i.e. to double or second-mark dissertations on PGT programmes rather than moderating, as was current practice. The initial response to the recommendation indicated that the Clerk of Senate had given permission for the subject area not to comply with published Guidelines. At its meeting in May 2018, ASC had concluded that the arrangement should be reviewed and asked Accounting and Finance to provide more information on the particular challenges that they faced in relation to marking and about their current moderation practice. The updated response indicated that the difficulties they faced when permission had been given by the Clerk of Senate had not significantly changed and that their student numbers had increased significantly. The response indicated that a 10% sample from across the range of marks was second marked, all marking sheets were reviewed, and the external examiners had indicated their satisfaction with the approach taken.

ASC members acknowledged the pressures created by large student numbers in Accounting and Finance but expressed concern at the possible risks to academic standards and reputational standing as a result of their practice diverging from the institution's published norm. The view was expressed that other areas of the University, even where student numbers were lower, were also under severe pressure in relation to marking. Professor Morrison reported that she was due to meet with the Head of the Adam Smith Business School to discuss the issue of the delayed return of grades to Registry, and would be willing to broaden discussion to cover the issue of the marking of PGT dissertations, to try to gather more information on the nature of the problem. ASC welcomed this suggestion and it was agreed that Professor Morrison should report back to the Committee's next meeting.

Action: Clerk of Senate

ASC/2018/5.3.2 Music

ASC received the update on one recommendation made at the Review held in February 2018 which had been identified as requiring immediate action. The recommendation concerned the role of GTAs. The response provided detailed information about the support mechanisms that had been put in place. ASC was satisfied that no further update was required. Responses to the remaining recommendations made at the review would follow in due course. 

ASC/2018/5.3.3 Psychology

At its meeting in May 2018 ASC received the responses to the recommendations made at the Review in February 2017. The actions relating to four of the recommendations were considered to be incomplete so ASC had requested further responses. These recommendations concerned the advising needs of MA (Arts) Psychology students, the School's operational relationships with the Research Institute being included in the College's administrative review, additional guidance on promotional criteria to be issued by the Recognising Excellence in Teaching Working Group, and GTA payments. ASC was satisfied with the responses provided. 

ASC received paper 18/08 which was feedback from College Deans of Learning & Teaching/College Boards of Studies reflecting on the operation of the revised approval processes, and paper 18/09 which was a report from Ms Helen Clegg on the process of spot-checking proposal documentation carried out by the Senate Office. Both papers indicated issues with proposals being brought forward late or being supported by inadequate documentation. While feedback from the Deans was generally positive about the revised processes, it was noted that there were difficulties for staff in understanding and navigating the approval process when it might be something that they were involved in infrequently, and a concern was also raised that important aspects of course and programme design were being lost in the administrative requirements of approval. Senate Office had undertaken to work on clarifying the centrally provided guidance, particularly in relation to consultation requirements and to improving awareness of the guidance on designing and proposing new programmes.

In discussion, ASC members noted a particular issue in relation to withdrawals, with some areas suspending programmes for a number of years and it then being impracticable to carry out the required consultation at the point of formal withdrawal. The QAA laid strong emphasis on appropriate consultation so it was important to demonstrate that appropriate action had been taken in the circumstances, particularly to ensure that the interests of current students had been protected.

Ms Butcher advised the Committee that Senate Office was developing training and that this would include input not only from Senate Office on the approval process but also from LEADS on course and programme design. The importance was also noted of recognising the different roles of administrative and academic staff, and of involving not only the Deans of Learning and Teaching but also the Deans of Graduate Studies when reflecting on the operation of the various processes.

ASC noted that problems identified through spot-checking were not currently being reported back to Colleges but agreed that it would be helpful if this could be done, as part of improving staff understanding of the requirements. Colleges would then be able to decide whether further checking of recently approved proposals was necessary.

Action: Senate Office

ASC noted the report of new programmes and programme amendments approved during session 2017-18. 

The remit and composition of ASC was approved for 2018-19. 

The membership of ASC was approved for 2018-19. 

A proposal had been submitted to ASC in May 2018 seeking in-principle approval. At that time ASC considered that insufficient information had been provided in terms of the structure of the programme and the modes of assessment. More detailed information had now been provided, indicating that it was a 24-month programme carrying 240 credits. ASC noted that the standard structure for a masters degree was a one-year programme of 180 credits, so the reasons for departing from the norm should be clearly articulated, and there should be clarity around what was expected of students over the summer months and what support and facilities would be available to students over this time.

ASC agreed to give in-principle approval to the proposal to introduce the MDes Silversmithing and Jewellery for a period of six years commencing in September 2019.

In-principle approval had also been sought for MLitt Design Intersections at the May 2018 meeting of ASC, and ASC had requested further information. The Committee received the revised proposal, noting that this included more detailed information on the programme structure and delivery. The programme followed the standard structure of 180 credits delivered full-time over one year.

ASC agreed to give in-principle approval to the proposal to introduce the MLitt Design Intersections for a period of six years commencing in September 2019.

At its meeting in May 2017 ASC approved amendments to the programme approval process for the Glasgow School of Art. Following operation of the new process during 2017-18, further aspects of the approval process had been considered. ASC agreed to the following new arrangements:

• For revalidations, GSA would highlight, through the annual report, programmes due for revalidation in the coming session and would subsequently provide a summary to ASC of programmes revalidated including details of any changes made and any significant issues raised.

• Extensions to the validation of existing programmes would be notified to the University with a rationale through the Annual Report.
• For programmes run jointly by the University and the GSA, validation, revalidation and major amendments would continue to require in-principle and full approval by ASC.

It was noted that ASC had previously agreed that for new programmes identified as non-standard both in-principle and full approval of ASC was required. It was agreed that it would be helpful to have some guidance on what constituted non-standard provision. Senate Office would take this forward with the Academic Collaborations Office.

Action: Senate Office and Academic Collaborations Office