Dr Lowdon had provided an updated response on the following issues.

Mental health of students. An institution-wide Mental Health Group had been established and was overseeing implementation of the Mental Health & Wellbeing Action Plan, published in October 2017. Action was focussed on raising awareness among students and staff, the provision of general training for non-experts and the strengthening of professional support.

ASC welcomed the update but noted that much of the work appeared to be reactive. Members questioned what was known about the extent to which students were coming to the University with mental health problems or whether the problems developed during their period of studies. It was known that students were reluctant to disclose mental health issues at the point of application. Others might also be unable to recognise their issues at the point of entry to the University, though the transition process in itself sometimes brought issues to the fore. The question was raised as to whether additional support could be focussed at known pressure points such as in senior honours. Members felt that it would be helpful to have easily accessible information on what training was offered for different categories of staff. It was agreed that comment on these issues should be requested from the Mental Health Group.

Action: Senate Office

Moodle. At the May 2018 meeting of ASC, members requested a further response from IT Services in relation to the Moodle interface for marking. Miss Phelan had provided an update indicating that the technical issue regarding marking in Moodle had been resolved. It was anticipated that testing would take place with users in Critical Studies around exam marking time in January 2019. The VLE Board was due to meet in December, so a further update would be provided for the January meeting of ASC.

There had been an on-going issue concerning an apparent contradiction between published statements on the requirements for promotion of academic staff. The Assistant Vice-Principal (Learning & Teaching), Professor Moira Fischbacher-Smith, had taken this forward with Ms Lesley Cummings, Head of Performance, Pay & Reward, HR, and ASC received a paper with further explanatory comments. ASC members accepted that the comments were helpful but noted that preponderance was an ambiguous term (the term was used both to refer to '50%' and to 'more than 50%' in the context of Exam Board discretion) and that its meaning in this context should be clearly defined. This should be reported back to HR.

Action: Senate Office

Professor Morrison reported that she had met with the Head of the Adam Smith Business School, Professor John Finch, to explore ASC's concerns regarding their practice in marking PGT dissertations, which did not comply with published marking guidelines. This had been a constructive meeting and Professor Finch had agreed to provide more detailed information about the particular pressures faced by the ASBS, but he had not yet done so.

Professor Morrison noted that there had been significant increases in PGT student numbers over the last few years, concentrated particularly in the ASBS, with increases likely to continue. This presented challenges in the need to maintain academic standards while at the same time managing workloads for staff. She suggested that a possible line of enquiry was to explore alternatives to the traditional dissertation, such as a research report or business plan, which would have lower word counts but would still meet programme ILOs and be subject to rigorous methods of assessment. It was agreed that the Assessment & Feedback Working Group should be invited to consider this issue.

Action: Clerk

ASC would return to the issue of dissertation marking on receipt of further information from ASBS.

ASC had requested that Colleges should receive feedback from the Senate Office in relation to the spot-checking that had taken place of proposal documentation submitted during 2017-18. That was now in hand and would be issued shortly.  

At the October 2018 meeting of ASC it had been noted that both in-principle and full approval by ASC would be required for new GSA programmes identified as non-standard. Guidance on what constituted non-standard provision had been requested. A meeting between Senate Office and the Academic Collaborations Office was due to take place shortly and a report would follow to ASC in January 2019. 

Dr Doherty introduced the Annual Monitoring Summary, highlighting a wealth of good practice. There was much evidence of enthusiastic staff who were committed to the enrichment of courses and programmes.

There were continuing and significant difficulties in relation to teaching accommodation across all Schools. This concerned the quality and suitability of accommodation, the responsiveness of room bookings, and the disruption caused by staff and students needing to travel across campus between rooms.

The Adam Smith Business School had highlighted the heavy workload required of external examiners and associated difficulties in recruitment to the role. ASC members noted that the Code of Assessment required 'all assessment' to be approved by the external examiner in advance. Members noted that it was not practicable for external examiners to see every component or sub-component of assessment when this sometimes comprised of weekly quizzes, each worth a very small proportion of the overall assessment. There was some ambiguity in the current wording, and anecdotally it appeared that there was a variety of practice across the Colleges as to how 'all assessment' was being interpreted, especially as more innovative assessment practices were being introduced, e.g. on-line exercises. ASC agreed that this issue should be referred for consideration by the Assessment and Feedback Working Group.

The issue of accessibility of teaching accommodation and facilities particularly for teaching staff had been raised in one area. While this had not been raised in any of the other reports, it was an important issue. The consistency and transparency of workload models in use across the University had been raised. Pressures relating to the assessment and teaching calendar, particularly during semester 1, had also been noted.

In relation to an issue raised by Sociology concerning the interaction of Student Conduct and Good Cause, Ms Butcher reported that the particular practice referred to had now been changed.

Dr Dick introduced the Annual Monitoring report for the College of Arts, noting many areas of good practice, with rich diversity in learning and teaching, innovation in course design and blended learning. She particularly noted the College's Learning & Teaching Moodle, which had been established as a best practice repository and was regularly updated.

Matters raised for the attention of the University included mental health and pastoral support for students (being raised by all Schools), and significant issues with teaching accommodation.

The operation of discretion in degree classification had been raised by one area, and ASC noted that this was currently under review by the Clerk of Senate. The requirement for a grade of D3 in the dissertation for the award of an Honours degree had been questioned by one School and it was agreed that this should be raised initially at the College Learning & Teaching Committee. One area had requested that assessment submission deadlines in vacation periods should be permitted, but ASC's view was that this would raise issues of equity given that many students had employment and caring responsibilities outwith semester time.

It was noted that there had been very full responses to the hot topics on teaching space refurbishment and on-line marking, and that much of the detail had been reflected in the report. It was noted that while the more innovative teaching spaces were welcomed, it was essential to have access to more traditional teaching spaces too and that these various needs should all be taken into account in the development of the new estate. While staff were keen to embrace e-submission and marking, there was a great deal of frustration at difficulties associated with the Moodle interface. For the College of Arts this was particularly the case in relation to essay-based assessment where extensive written feedback was required. A complicated and time-consuming process of downloading and then uploading of the relevant materials was required.

Dr Rogerson introduced the Annual Monitoring report for the College of MVLS, noting the dissemination across the College of good and innovative practice, and a high level of academic engagement which fostered an effective learning environment. While staff were willing to engage in innovation, there were real challenges associated with staffing levels, especially for face-to-face teaching, as repeatedly raised in AMR. The update report from Estates & Buildings (ASC 17/68) was welcome. However, it continued to be the case that CMIS did not to work well for the medical professional programmes, particularly in terms of the degree of flexibility that was required for teaching. 

Dr Casey introduced the Annual Monitoring report for the College of Science & Engineering, which for the first time reflected both undergraduate and postgraduate provision. She noted that there was much good practice to celebrate, with dedicated staff creating a strong learning community with the students. The report highlighted the impact on staff of a number of complex administrative systems, meaning that less time was available for interaction with the students. The 15 working day turnaround time required for assessment feedback to be provided to students was proving to be very challenging on courses with high student numbers.

One issue noted by ASC was the concern regarding poor progression rates of students entering directly into Level 2 (Chemistry, Computing Science, Engineering). Across the College this was a problem particularly for students entering from Glasgow International College, and it was noted that there was a similar problem for students in Life Sciences (MVLS). ASC agreed that a specific response on this issue should be sought from the Joint Academic Management Board.

The report noted that some derogatory personal comments were being made by students in the EvaSys returns. While it was possible for such comments to be removed manually, ASC's view was that work should be undertaken to dissuade students from making the comments in the first place, in line with the 'Full Stop' campaigns. This should be highlighted to the SRC and to the Student Experience Committee.

While problems were noted with the functionality of Moodle, there was also concern about technical support and training provision. In addition, staff found the system to be extremely slow at times, which was understood to be an issue for IT Services to address.

The report demonstrated the frustration for staff in raising the same issues as in previous years, and being unaware of whether any action had been taken in the interim. The impression created by the report was of worsening situations in relation to both staffing levels and teaching accommodation. Many aspects of the latter were noted in relation to the hot topics section of the report.

It was noted that it was difficult for Quality Officers at School level to see the bigger picture across the University as a whole, and it was therefore important, firstly, to have a synthesis of different themes being drawn at College level, and then, secondly, to have clear reporting back to Colleges and Schools on the actions being taken. The more detailed reporting back that had lately been conducted by the Senate Office was helpful in this regard. It was also noted that College Quality Officers had met in the last week and there was optimism that this was potentially a valuable forum that could play an important part in strengthening the feedback loop. ASC members discussed whether there was potential to strengthen the School Quality Officer role, for example by highlighting the work in the P&DR process. It was agreed that these comments should be fed in to the review of Annual Monitoring currently being undertaken by Senate Office.

Action: Clerk

Dr Lowdon from the Senate Office had prepared a Summary of the common themes emerging from the College reports.

In general discussion of the issues raised, ASC noted the following:

• Under Staffing (academic), the quotes included focussed on the School of Veterinary Medicine, which might mask the fact that similar concerns were raised in other areas. It was suggested that the quotes did not need to be attributed if they reflected general concerns.
• Concerns regarding insufficient support staff had been raised. The University Secretary was currently conducting a review of administrative staffing.
• Issues raised by the College of Arts were not reflected in the Summary document as there had been a delay in submitting the report. However, their comments would be reflected in the Summary of Postgraduate Monitoring reports received in January.
• Concerns raised through EvaSys did not always reach the relevant staff as only the Head of School and teaching member of staff had access to the returns. Where courses fed into multiple programmes this meant that Programme Leads could be unaware of poor feedback or, where problems had been identified (e.g. a low pass rate on a course), it was not easy to access the information submitted to EvaSys. Low return rates were being reported again. Information had previously been circulated on how to promote higher return rates but members asked if this could be considered again.
• Students were required to opt in to text messages where a teaching venue was changed and there was a concern that this was causing difficulties.
• There was strong feeling regarding the need to have full consultation with local staff when renovation of teaching accommodation was to be carried out.
• Student attendance monitoring. This was an example of an issue where local areas had a range of different practices, whereas other universities had one institution-wide system.
• Disabled access issues for staff should be added to the Summary.
• Session dates and graduation dates. It was of great importance to international students to have as much notice as possible of exam diets and graduation dates, and this should be highlighted.

Drawing on the Summary, ASC agreed that the following themes would be highlighted to Senate Office as requiring responses, and reported to EdPSC:

• Suitability and quality of teaching spaces.
• Student mental health.
• IT facilities.
• Staffing.
• EvaSys.
• Assessment and Feedback.
• External Examiners.
• Progression.
• Session dates.

Action: Senate Office

In concluding the discussion, members acknowledged that the Annual Monitoring reports contained many positives and that it was important not to lose sight of these in amongst the challenges. ASC was pleased to be able to commend the areas of good practice to the Good Practicer Officer in LEADS for dissemination.

ASC received and noted the report detailing the schedule of PSR reports due to be submitted to the Committee during the current session with allocated ASC reviewers for each report. New members were invited to note the role of the reviewer as detailed in the paper.

A request was made for the schedule to be circulated with ASC meeting papers to help members track their various allocations. It was agreed that the schedule should also be added to the committee papers available on the Senate Office website.

Action: Clerk

ASC/2018/16.2.1 School of Modern Languages & Cultures

ASC received the full report from the PSR of the School of Modern Languages & Cultures which took place on 3 May 2018, having been previously postponed due to adverse weather.

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 commended the clarity of the recommendations and approved the report for onward transmission to the relevant officers.

ASC/2018/16.3.1 Central & East European Studies

ASC had requested updates on four recommendations. In relation to Recommendation 5 (work with GTAs), Recommendation 6 (SSLC) and Recommendation 7B (progression from Level 1) ASC was satisfied that no further response was required. In relation to Recommendation 3, a review of long-term technical support for the subject area's webpages was to be addressed at School level but had been delayed. ASC requested an update from the School on this.

ASC/2018/16.3.2 History of Art

ASC had requested updates on four recommendations. In relation to Recommendation 3 (workload model and early career staff), Recommendation 4 (role of course convener) and Recommendation 5 (roles of and training for GTAs) ASC was satisfied that no further response was required. Recommendation 9 was concerned with ensuring that learning spaces and opportunities were accessible to disabled students. This recommendation arose from concerns regarding access for students with a mobility impairment and the original response indicated that the subject area was continuing to address this as best it could within the constraints of the existing estate. The response had also raised the separate issue of how visual tests for disabled students should be supported. The subject area had now amended the assessment in Level 2 to avoid these particular difficulties, but this was not possible for the Level 1 tests. The Disability Service response indicated that they were aware of the issue and were trying to manage student expectations as to what was possible. ASC noted that this issue was going beyond what had been raised in the PSR and should therefore be taken forward elsewhere. The Director of the Senate Office was currently considering possible adjustments for disabled students for assessments taking place outwith the main exam diets, and he would therefore be asked to incorporate this issue into his review.

Action: Clerk

At the meeting of EdPSC held on 24 October 2018, the issue of dissertation supervisors acting as second markers was raised. There was concern that this was contrary to the University's policy on anonymous marking. The view was expressed that it was not good practice for the supervisor to be involved in marking though there was recognition of constraints associated with staff resources.

The Convener of EdPSC had asked ASC to give the policy on anonymous marking some consideration with this issue in mind, noting also assessment activities where commentary on student performance was involved such as for oral presentations or for laboratory work.

ASC members noted that the Code of Assessment included the following statement:

16.2 a) Each such course will incorporate a scheme of assessment which:

...vii) is as far as practicable anonymous.

In discussion, members noted that anonymity was one consideration in marking but, on the other hand, a supervisor was able to contribute valuable subject expertise in the assessment of submitted work. In many areas the supervisor was one of two markers, so that any risk of impartiality was balanced. On many dissertations or projects, summative assessment comprised a number of different components, with different staff being involved in the process. Clearly there were some components that could only be marked by the supervisor (e.g. performance in the lab, engagement in supervision), and for presentations anonymity was not practicable. There was a need to be aware of possible compromises to impartiality (e.g. where a supervisor was marking a piece of work for which they had already provided detailed feedback on a draft) and Boards of Examiners should ensure that there was a robust process in place to ensure fairness. ASC's view was that involving supervisors in the marking of their students' work was not inconsistent with the current wording of the Code and that the current wording was appropriate.

The original proposal for introduction of the MLitt Art, Society and Culture was presented to ASC in May 2018 and was referred back to GSA with a request for further information. ASC noted that the information submitted now gave clarity on the programme structure and delivery, schedule of teaching and assessment, and the programme aims and learning outcomes.

ASC agreed to give in-principle approval to the proposal to introduce the MLitt Art, Society and Culture, due to commence in September 2019.

Professor Vicky Gunn, Head of Learning and Teaching, The Glasgow School of Art, was welcomed to the meeting. She introduced the paper outlining a proposal from GSA to develop an amended Programme Monitoring and Annual Reporting process. The proposal was timely in view of the recent significant drop in National Student Survey results for the School of Fine Art. Professor Gunn highlighted the need to focus on demonstrating the impact of enhancements of programme learning and teaching in order to support the student experience.

ASC was satisfied that the paper gave a clear justification for the review as well as a good outline of the plan and its aims, and therefore agreed to give in-principle approval to the request from GSA to develop an amended Programme Monitoring and Annual Reporting process.