In discussion at the January 2019 meeting of ASC the question had been raised as to how PGT students with disabilities could be identified more quickly, given their short time at the University. Mr Bennion had discussed this issue with Ms Jane Weir, Deputy Director of Students Services and Mrs Shona Robertson, Director of the Disability Service. Contrary to what ASC had understood, it was not the case that UCAS made available to the University information disclosed by undergraduate applicants about disability, and it was important that admission decisions were taken independently of such information. Rather than seeking such information at application stage, ASC suggested that in conditional and unconditional offer letters to PG applicants a statement could be included flagging the availability of support for students with disabilities and providing an appropriate link for contacting the Disability Service. This suggestion would be passed to Admissions.

Action: Clerk

Ms Phelan had reported that following a number of upgrades of the Moodle interface for marking there had been no further indication from Critical Studies that the issue remained problematic. The VLE Development Board had also indicated that in view of the on-going VLE review and the work of the Assessment and Feedback Transformation Board, it was not the time for a significant investment of resources into the existing system. 

ASC had been due to receive a full update on issues raised through 2016-17 and 2017-18 Annual Monitoring in relation to student mental health but this was still awaited and would be requested for the May 2019 meeting. 

One of the key features of the regulations governing eligibility for the award of merit and distinction was that the requirements should be met through the candidate's first attempts at assessment. As currently written, the regulations (§9.2-9.5 of the generic PGT regulations - see Appendix) allowed a candidate to meet the requirements for award of merit or distinction without also meeting the requirements for the award of the Masters degree at first attempt (§9.1). For example, after all first attempts at assessment a candidate might meet the required GPA of 14 for the taught courses but have one or more course grades at G1 or below. Following reassessment they could raise those grades to at least F3 and then qualify for the award of the Masters degree which would then also be eligible to be awarded with merit.

It was not known whether when the generic PGT regulations were first introduced this position was intended. Recently a small number of cases had come to light where a candidate would qualify for the degree with merit despite only meeting the requirements for the degree itself following reassessment. The question had been raised as to whether this was an anomaly that should be removed or whether it was an appropriate position.

In discussion, ARSC members had noted that there were a number of possible reasons for students receiving a very low grade for one or more courses while performing strongly elsewhere (e.g. inadvertently missing an exam). While on the one hand it seemed illogical that a student could be awarded a merit despite not achieving the standard required for the Masters degree at first attempt, members had concluded that it was not a standards issue and no compelling case had been made for changing the regulations. ASC concurred with this position so no change would be made to the rules.

The generic PGT regulations referred to various grade point averages as required for progress and for the award of the degree and merit/distinction. Currently where such GPAs were stated, an equivalent alphanumeric grade was also referred to (e.g. §9.1, §9.2 (a) see Appendix). This appeared to have caused some confusion. GPA was calculated to one decimal place, and the footnote to §9.1 stated that: 'The grade point average is expressed to one decimal place (§16.34(a) of the Code of Assessment). In determining whether a candidate has satisfied requirements in relation to progress and award, no further rounding is permitted. For example, a grade point average of 11.9 would not satisfy a requirement for a grade point average of 12.'

On the other hand, grade points were rounded to the nearest integer to arrive at overall course grades (i.e. 11.9 would become a C3).

ARSC members had noted that reference to the alphanumeric values of Schedule A was a reminder that the numeric values of grade points related to verbal descriptors. However, the Committee's view was that that reminder was now obsolete as the format and operation of the assessment schedules were well understood.

It was suggested that referring in the regulations to a GPA of 15.0 rather than 15 would make it clearer that the value was to be calculated to one decimal place.

ASC agreed that reference to alphanumeric characters should be removed and that GPAs throughout degree regulations should be referred to one decimal place.

At the November 2018 meeting of ASC, in the context of matters raised through Annual Monitoring, there had been a discussion regarding the role of External Examiners in the approval of summative assessments to be used at each diet and ARSC had been asked to consider whether the regulation needed clarification.

ARSC members noted that s. 16.64 of the Code of Assessment set out the duties of External Examiners and this included the requirement to 'comment on, in advance, all summative assessment instruments (or, in cases involving a high volume of continuous assessment, a sample may be provided for advance comment)'. From discussion, it was clear that there was some variation in practice in different areas of the University but there was consistency in requiring external examiners to consider, in advance, all examination papers. Sampling was in operation in relation to continuous assessment, particularly where courses had a large number of instruments of assessment. In general, items of assessment carrying heavier weighting were prioritised for consideration by the external examiner. Where there was more than one external examiner, consideration of assessment materials could be split between them.

ARSC had concluded that the current wording of the Code in relation to the approval of assessment by external examiners offered an appropriate degree of flexibility, ensuring that there was adequate scrutiny without overburdening external examiners or University staff. ASC noted this position.

Credit Withheld (CW) was used to indicate that a candidate's assessment was incomplete and that insufficient assessment had currently been completed for credit to be awarded. At honours, eligibility for the award of credit depended on the amount of assessment completed across the honours programme as a whole and currently the Code required that any courses where any component of assessment was missing at the end of junior honours should be reported as CW. Concerns had been reported on the implications of this for progression and subsequent enrolment. Students were not progressed automatically if there was a CW for any of their junior honours courses, and until they were progressed they were unable to enrol in senior honours courses. ARSC had noted that any CW returned at the end of junior honours operated as a flag to the senior honours Exam Board that some assessment was missing and that this needed to be taken into account in determining eligibility for the award of credit on all courses.

The view was also expressed that where students had any components of assessment missing at the end of junior honours (whether CW or MV) it was appropriate that the student's situation should be considered by an advisor. Students needed to be clear on the requirements for senior honours in order to ensure that they would qualify for the honours degree, and even small components of assessment that were missed in junior honours could be of critical significance to this eligibility. It was also noted that in Arts there had been much work done recently in ensuring that all staff understood the detailed provisions on eligibility for the award of credit, and there was a risk that small revisions to the rules could cause confusion. Such changes should only be made if there was a compelling case. The Committee concluded that section 16.44 (d), requiring the use of CW at the end of junior honours for courses where any component of assessment had not been completed, should be retained in its current form. ASC noted this discussion.

ASC approved a minor amendment to Recommendation 10. The Recommendation had suggested reviewing recognition of prior experience on the PGCAP but it had subsequently been noted that a mechanism already existed for this. 

ASC/2018/37.2.1 Undergraduate Medical School

ASC received the report of the Review of the Undergraduate Medical School which took place on 20-21 November 2018. The Panel had made 11 recommendations to support the School in its reflection and to enhance provision in relation to teaching, learning and assessment. ASC made the following observations:

3.3.1: Dr Jackson advised ASC that the paragraph overstated the requirements on Advisers of Studies: Advisers were required to meet their advisees at least once in Years 1-2 and to make contact at least once in Years 3-5, rather than meeting periodically in Years 1-3 and meeting at least once in Years 4-5, as suggested in the report. A correction to the report would be requested.

3.3.6: ASC suggested that an additional recommendation could be included, for the attention of the School and LEADS, on considering what further could be done at induction to support students in their preparation for independent learning.

4.1.9-11: TELT: Noting comments in 4.1.10 regarding developments in this area being reactive, ASC suggested that the two recommendations within paragraph 4.1.11 should also require the articulation of an overall TELT strategy.

4.3.4: The recommendation was concerned with resolving administrative difficulties, and ASC noted that the paragraph referred to a shortage of experienced staff, so suggested the recommendation could refer specifically to seeking to identify the cause of staff turnover.

ASC/2018/37.3.1 Management

ASC received the six-month update from the review of Management which detailed the responses and progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. ASC welcomed the full responses provided but noted the following:

Recommendation 3: this concerned the development of teaching of large classes. The response stated that LEADS had been consulted but had indicated a limited ability to assist. Dr Ramsay advised that there was scope for LEADS to assist further, perhaps in conjunction with sharing of good practice from other courses with large student cohorts, such as Biology 1. ASC requested that this be fed back to Management and that a further report be made to ASC in October 2019.

Recommendation 4: this concerned the review of consistency and timeliness of feedback, assessment and marking. The response did not include any reference to timeliness and a further response was requested on this for the October 2019 meeting of ASC.

ASC/2018/37.3.2 Music

ASC received the six-month update from the review of Music which detailed the responses and progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. A number of the responses were discussed and ASC agreed to ask for further updates for the October 2019 meeting as follows:

Recommendation 4: The recommendation concerned a review of the administration and content of the BEng/MEng degree, and the response focused on content without any reference to consideration of joint ownership of the programme, as envisaged in the review report.

Recommendation 7: The response indicated that the Subject was conducting a review of its assessment and feedback strategy. ASC would welcome a further report once the audit of assessments and documentation was complete.

Recommendation 11: The recommendation concerned the provision of career information to students. The response provided was brief with no reference to the involvement of the Careers Service, and a further update on the career development resources to be developed on Moodle would be welcome.

ASC/2018/37.3.3 School of Law

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

ASC was satisfied with the responses. ASC noted that the response to Recommendation 6 detailed a new approach aimed at increasing the EvaSys response rate. It was agreed that Law should be asked to report to the October 2019 meeting of ASC on whether this resulted in an improved response rate for semester 1 and semester 2. This would be of value to the Senate Office in considering how best to improve response rates across the University.

ASC/2018/37.3.4 School of Physics & Astronomy

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

Recommendation 1 was concerned with administrative support for teaching and it was noted that the School was currently the only School in the College that did not have a teaching administrator. ASC agreed that an update on this issue should be requested from the College for the October 2019 meeting.

Recommendation 3 concerned training for demonstrators and included reference to the demonstrators' comments on the limited value of statutory GTA training because of its focus on classroom teaching. ASC noted that LEADS offered an optional extra course on laboratory teaching led by Geographical & Earth Sciences staff.

ASC/2018/37.4.1 Information Studies

ASC received further updates from Information Studies on progress made in implementing eight of the recommendations made at the review. Recommendation 12 concerned guidance and support in relation to the Early Career Development Programme. ASC requested confirmation from HR that the previously conflicting information available on the PPR website had been clarified.

ASC/2018/37.4.2 School of Life Sciences

ASC received further updates from Life Sciences on three of the recommendations made at the review. The responses were satisfactory with no further updates required.

Professor Murray was welcomed to the meeting. The University was offering online distance learning programmes across an ever-expanding range of subject areas. The involvement of Wiley Educational Services now offered the potential for considerable growth and it was anticipated that within the next five years there could be up to 2000 students studying in this way. It had been proposed that such programmes should be governed by a separate set of generic regulations which largely mirrored the existing PGT generic regulations governing on-campus delivery but included small variations better suited to the nature of flexible part-time on-line delivery. ASC considered the draft regulations, and in particular the following features:

Minimum period of study: for part-time students this would be two years for a Masters (though the usual would be three years, with two only applying on an exceptional 'accelerated' pathway), two years for a Postgraduate Diploma and one year for a Postgraduate Certificate. Provision should be included for full-time students but these would be rare.

Maximum period of study: for part-time students it would be six years for a Masters (reflecting the usual minimum of three years), four years for a PG Certificate and PG Diploma. This mirrored the existing generic PGT provisions. It had been suggested that the PG Certificate maximum duration should be limited to two years but the Committee preferred that the maximum should mirror the provisions in the PGT generic regulations though there should be provision for progress to be considered after two years (see below).

Entry points: On-line delivery would not necessarily follow the conventional structure for the delivery of teaching, so could include teaching periods that commenced in September, January and April. Each of these could also be entry points for students. It was noted that it would be for each programme team to decide what pattern of teaching they would follow, reflecting for example whether it was practicable for staff locally to offer a teaching block that commenced in April.

Progress: For students registered for a PG Diploma or a Masters an additional progress point would be introduced after completion of 60 credits of taught courses. In order to progress to the remaining taught courses on the programme students would be required to achieve a GPA of at least 7. This relatively modest requirement was below the standard required for award of the PG Certificate but allowed for the possibility of students improving their performance across the remaining taught credits to a standard where they would either qualify for the award of a PG Diploma (GPA of 9) or even progress to the Masters (GPA of 12). The requirement enabled the University to exclude students who were not fully engaging with studies or who did not show the potential to perform at the required level. Exam Boards would be required to ratify results after each assessment diet so that progress could be considered. The Committee noted that for ODL students there was more of a risk that they would not maintain engagement with their studies, so it was agreed that although maximum duration of study for the PG Certificate would be set at four years, progress should be considered after two years if a student had not yet completed 60 credits; in order to stay on the programme they would be required to have achieved a GPA of 7 in what they had completed at that point.

Commencement of substantial independent work: The clause referring to students embarking on the independent project before successful completion of 120 taught courses was introduced with the word 'Exceptionally' as the norm on such programmes would be to have a clear progress point. However, it was desirable to leave open the possibility of early starts where an accelerated track was offered.

In due course, provision of postgraduate professional development and the possibility for students moving between on-campus and ODL mode would be considered.

ASC approved the introduction of the proposed regulations subject to the amendments as discussed.

In this discussion, a concern was raised regarding the fact that the PGT generic regulations imposed a global taught courses GPA as a requirement of progress but also permitted one or more courses to be identified where a threshold grade could be an additional progress requirement. In some areas it was felt that a higher GPA in relation to particular courses was a more appropriate progress requirement, as was currently the case in relation to honours entry (an overall GPA of 9 was required but the subject area could set a higher GPA in relation to courses in their own subject). It was agreed that ARSC should be asked to review this issue.

Action: Clerk