ASC noted that a progress report was now available on the work being led by Dr Nathalie Sheridan from LEADS in relation to GTAs. It had been proposed that a Working Group of Learning & Teaching Committee should be established to develop a GTA Code of Practice. LTC would therefore be monitoring further developments. 

Updates requested on this issue from 2016-17 Annual Monitoring were incorporated into the reporting noted below (ASC/2018/46.2). 

At the March 2019 meeting, ASC had noted ARSC's views on the current wording of the Code of Assessment in relation to the approval of assessment by external examiners. ARSC had reported that there was some variation in practice in different areas of the University in relation to external examiners' involvement in approving coursework but there was consistency in requiring external examiners to consider, in advance, all examination papers. This had been reported to EdPSC, where a question was raised about what the position would be where an external examiner was not available, or failed, to approve an exam paper. This issue had been be referred to ARSC for consideration.

Action: ARSC

The Convener reported that work was underway in relation to various features of the course and programme approval process and that it was therefore necessary to reconvene the Course and Programme Approval Steering Group. The Group had not met since May 2016 so new members and a new convener were sought. While ideally the convener would be an ASC member, other Steering Group members could be College representatives who had close involvement in the approval process. Any interested members were invited to approach the clerk either to express their own interest or suggest possible representatives from their College.

Action: All

ASC received the report of a meeting that took place on 1 May 2019 between a sub-group of ASC and representatives from the Adam Smith Business School to consider the School's practices in relation to the supervision and marking of PGT dissertations.

It had been noted that the University's position on marking practice was set out in a document that had originally been developed through the Learning & Teaching Committee ('Moderation and Second Marking'). This had not been incorporated into the Code of Assessment and was described as Guidance that set out good practice, aimed at ensuring that appropriate standards in assessment were applied consistently. The document noted that the extent to which this could be achieved in practice might be limited by resource constraints. The guidance indicated that PGT dissertations should be double marked or 'at the very least... if practicable, be second marked with a 100% sample'.

At the meeting, it had been noted that the dissertation was a high stakes assessment, representing one third of the credits taken on a generic PGT programme and the grade achieved was one of the criteria that determined the final degree outcome. In ASBS, PGT dissertations were currently not all double or second marked. Information provided by ASBS set out the various steps involved in a moderation protocol that had been developed to ensure marking standards. There was also a discussion of the involvement of adjunct staff in marking: in Accounting & Finance all marking was undertaken by adjunct staff and for both Economics and Management it was about 50%, but these were experienced individuals, and comprehensive briefing was provided by ASBS. The supervisor of the dissertation also acted as first marker, which had raised some concerns for ASC regarding anonymity in the marking process. There was a discussion at the meeting about the fact that supervisors each had a relatively high number of supervisees and, by necessity, there were clear protocols on the number and duration of supervisory meetings and a limit on the volume of material a supervisor would review in draft. The experience in ASBS was that close relationships between supervisor and student did not tend to form in the same way as could happen in areas of the University which had smaller student cohorts and where the supervisor-student interaction was not as clearly defined.

The view of the sub-group of ASC was that ASBS had made a sufficient case for the continued use of their current supervision arrangements, and their marking protocol allied with a detailed review and moderation system that was made possible given their particular context of high student numbers and rendered necessary by limited availability of staff with the appropriate subject specific expertise for marking dissertations.

ASC accepted this view and agreed that this practice could continue for the foreseeable future though reserved the right to revisit this pending the outcome of annual review of the moderation process.

ASC further agreed that:

• The ASBS should report to ASC on the marking process undertaken in 2019, to include a report on the outcome from the marking/moderation protocols (e.g. number of dissertations/markers identified for review through statistical analysis and through the review carried out by dissertation conveners), the total number of dissertations subject to second marking and the proportion of dissertations where grades were amended, with an indication of the scale of adjustments, through the moderation protocol.
• The ASBS should report to ASC on their conclusions regarding how to improve the debriefing of supervisors/markers at the end of the year.
• The ASBS should continue to consider possible alternatives to the traditional dissertation.
ASBS would be asked to report to ASC on these matters in January 2020.

In September 2018, ASC had been advised that the review of annual monitoring had been overtaken by plans for a project associated with the Evidence-led Enhancement Theme. Funding from the enhancement theme was to be used to employ two interns to conduct interviews with key stakeholders in annual monitoring, Heads of School, Learning & Teaching Conveners, Quality Officers, etc, to gather views on how annual monitoring could be more useful and integrated with other activity. Unfortunately, the recruitment process had been delayed and proposals were now expected to come to ASC in October 2019. Ms Phelan requested that in the course of the review the interns consult with relevant services, including IT Services.

In the meantime, amendments to the College Annual Monitoring Form for the current session had been agreed with the College Quality Officers. These were intended to simplify and streamline reporting to ASC.

ASC members welcomed the revised format of the form. It was agreed that it was important that it should evolve to reflect key themes arising in previous years. Members discussed what the main purpose of the form was, whether it was about reporting generally on good practice or whether there should be a clearer focus on enhancement and driving change across the university, perhaps by making a clearer reference to innovation. It was agreed that more guidance on what was expected would be useful, to avoid inclusion of unnecessary content.

ASC questioned the removal of reference to what action had been taken in response to issues raised in the previous year as this was considered to be a valuable part of the exercise. There was also a request that under student support more examples could be given of what might be covered, to include employability and graduate attributes.

ASC received responses to issues raised in the College Annual Monitoring Summaries.

ASC noted the following:

• Quality and suitability of teaching spaces: The responses on these issues continued to reflect the pressure on available teaching accommodation across the estate. While new and upgraded facilities would become available, members noted that student numbers were still projected to grow in coming years so this was likely to be an on-going issue.
• IT facilities at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital: it was agreed that this issue should be referred to the MVLS College Chief Operating Officer as it related to the terms under which the University shared use of the facility with the NHS.
• Access to Mahara portfolio work post-graduation: Miss Phelan indicated a willingness to investigate possible solutions to this long-running problem, particularly as the use of portfolio work was increasing across the University.
• Student mental health support: The update report referred to the introduction of the Big White Wall, a resource that was available to both staff and students. ASC questioned the awareness of this but it was noted that Chief Advisers' Sub-group and the Mental Health Action Group were both looking at improving information about the various forms of support available.
• Course Evaluation Policy: One of the responses indicated that it was possible to include questions relating to the contribution of individual members of staff teaching on a course. This was queried as in one area in Arts staff had recently been advised that this was no longer permitted under GDPR. Clarification on this would be sought.

Action: Senate Office

ASC received a report on the review of the Periodic Subject Review process and proposed key changes for the fourth PSR cycle which would commence in autumn 2020, with a pilot due to be undertaken in 2019-20.

ASC noted the proposal that Schools/Subjects would produce a shorter and more clearly structured Reflective Analysis (rather than the current Self Evaluation Report), and that there would be greater reflection on data. The final report would also be shorter providing more of an overview of the Panel's findings, with a revised process for finalising recommendations in dialogue with the School/Subject and the possibility of incorporating responses to recommendations into an action plan that would be monitored as part of annual monitoring.

In discussion, ASC noted that there needed to be a balance in not shortening the report to such an extent that ASC would be unable to form a view on issues that had arisen in the course of the review but that were not incorporated into any of the draft recommendations. Also concerns were expressed about the difficulty of capturing all the relevant information in a Reflective Analysis of only 12 pages, and it was noted that what might be appropriate in areas with a large number of programmes could be different in those where the number of programmes was lower. It was noted that the clearer structure of the Reflective Analysis should help in managing this.

ASC/2018/47.2.1 Celtic & Gaelic

ASC received the report of the Review of Celtic & Gaelic which took place on 22 February 2019. The Panel had made 12 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 3: ASC suggested that this recommendation, which was concerned with recruitment, should refer to involving External Relations in developing its strategy. Given that the recommendation also referred to working with the School of Modern Languages and Cultures on combined marketing, it was suggested that the recommendation should be marked as being for the attention of the Head of that School (in addition to the Head of Subject and External Relations).

Recommendation 12: This recommendation concerned the understanding of ECDP that staff carrying out PDR for early career staff should have. This was currently marked as being for the attention of Head of Subject, but members felt this would more appropriately be addressed to the Director of Human Resources. The committee's view was that the recommendation could usefully indicate that, instead of focusing on ECDP itself, PDR could focus on advice and support concerning career progression and promotion. It was noted in this regard that in Life Sciences an early career mentor and the line manager both contributed to PDR and this worked well and could be considered for use in Celtic and Gaelic.

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

ASC/2018/47.2.2 School of Veterinary Medicine (Undergraduate Provision)

ASC received the report of the Review of the School of Veterinary Medicine which took place on 18-19 February 2019. 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:

Recommendation 9: This concerned supporting the development of scholarship. The recommendation referred to the Learning & Teaching Development Fund as a possible source of funding. ASC suggested adding reference to having early engagement with the College contact in LEADS in this regard. ASC also suggested that the recommendation should refer to considering the use of mentorship for Learning & Teaching staff as the report noted that this had operated successfully in other areas, e.g. Life Sciences.

Recommendation 10: This recommendation addressed one of the issues raised in paragraph 4.4.9 in relation to the PGCAP, i.e. the support for staff participating in LEADS training events. It was felt that the recommendation left unaddressed the following matters: the workload pressure associated with the ECDP (as had been identified in other PSRs); the lack of protected time for participation in ECDP; the withdrawal of HEA accreditation for the qualification; and Athena Swan/health and safety concerns arising from the conditions under which staff are required to complete the ECDP.

[Clerk's post-meeting note: The Panel Convener's view was that these issues did not lend themselves readily to specific recommendations, but she would forward the feedback to the ECDP Programme Director and the Director of LEADS.]

Paragraph 4.2.7 of the report highlighted the frustration for staff and students arising from the fact that students' portfolio work on Mahara did not remain available to students after graduation. No recommendation had been made in this respect but, as noted in connection with the Annual Monitoring (ASC/2018/46.2), it was timely that possible solutions should be investigated in conjunction with IT Services and other stakeholders. ASC agreed that a recommendation should be included to this effect.

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

ASC/2018/47.3.1 School of Education

ASC received the six-month update report from the review of Education held on 19 and 20 March 2018, which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. ASC noted that the School response included a number of general comments including a concern that issues of resource constraint had not been adequately addressed through PSR. PSR was intended to focus on ensuring the quality of the student experience and engagement with quality enhancement. This was undertaken in the context of the resources available to the School as PSR did not play any formal role in the University's budget planning and allocation process.

A number of recommendations had been fully addressed but it was agreed that further updates were required in relation to:

Recommendation 1: ASC acknowledged that the school placement system was managed by a third party but noted that the recommendation was concerned with the unevenness of support and communication provided to students while on placement, and a further update on this was required.

Recommendation 3: ASC noted that the Panel had recommended the articulation of the School's vision for the next five years, and the response referred to the vision being incorporated School's Annual Strategic Planning Report but it was not clear that this covered the five year period referred to in the recommendation.

Recommendation 4: This concerned the rationalisation of PGT provision, and the response indicated that the School found the withdrawal of programmes to be difficult in view of what they perceived to be unclear and protracted processes. Guidance was available on the Senate Office website but a member of staff from the Senate Office would be asked to contact the School to discuss the issue.

Recommendation 5: The recommendation concerned reporting between Research Teaching Groups and other School committees. The response indicated a lack of staffing to carry out minute taking but noted that the issue was being taken forward by RTG Leaders. ASC requested an update on this.

Recommendation 7: The recommendation was concerned with difficulties associated with timetabling of teaching. Responses had been received from Estates & Buildings and from the School, both indicating a willingness to meet though this had not yet happened. ASC requested that both should take action to ensure that a meeting took place, and that progress be reported back to ASC.

Recommendation 11: The School response provided information on their success in student recruitment, noting that Scottish Government targets were 'unrealistic'. ASC requested further information on why the School believed that they were unrealistic.

ASC requested that further updates on these recommendations be provided by the School for reporting to the November 2019 meeting of ASC.

ASC/2018/47.3.2 Short Courses

ASC received the six-month update report from the review of Short Courses held on 1 and 2 May 2018, which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. A number of recommendations had been fully addressed but it was agreed that further updates were required in relation to:

Recommendation 1: A number of initiatives in relation to the training of tutors were reported for implementation or further development in 2019-20.

Recommendations 5, 6 and 7 all concerned access to and use of Moodle and other online developments.

Recommendation 9: A number of actions to be taken forward during 2019-20 had been outlined.

Recommendation 10: Some initial work had been carried out towards improving the Resource Base for part-time tutors.

Recommendation 13: Amended arrangements for briefing Access tutors on Level 1 curriculum changes were to be introduced in 2019-20.

Recommendation 14: ASC was disappointed to note the limited progress on the issue of making learning spaces accessible to disabled students and the fact that there appeared to be no clear plan for a way forward.

Updates on all the above recommendations were therefore requested for consideration at the May 2020 meeting of ASC.

ASC/2018/47.4.1 Accounting & Finance

ASC received the update response from the review of Accounting & Finance held on 3 March 2017. ASC had previously requested further information on how support could be provided earlier to students in the preparation of their research proposals. The updated response referred to the creation of a postgraduate advising service but did not explicitly address the issue raised. ASC therefore requested an update that would address this point, as well as giving the further information on the service proposition that was referred to in the update as being available imminently. ASC also requested information about the timing of the appointment of dissertation supervisors and the first meeting of students with their supervisor. The update would be requested for the October 2019 meeting of ASC.

ASC noted the final update report on progress made regarding conditions and recommendations arising out of the Periodic Review of the School of Fine Art held in session 2017-18. 

ASC received the report and action plan of the Periodic Review of Postgraduate Research held on 6 September 2018 and noted that the various matters referred to in the action plan would be monitored by relevant committees during session 2019-20. It was noted under point 2.4 of the report that training and development available for PhD supervision had been found to be not fit for purpose. Point 3.4 referred to a new Code of Practice for Supervisors that was 'in the pipeline' and point 3.5 recorded the intention to introduce supervisory training sessions for all new supervisors. The Committee noted that these points were not reflected in the recommendations and action plan so requested an indication of how progress on these matters was to be monitored. 

Friday 4 October 2019

Friday 22 November 2019

Friday 24 January 2020

Friday 20 March 2020

Friday 22 May 2020

ASC noted that following the consultation exercise reported to ASC in January 2019, the UK Standing Committee for Quality Assessment (UKSCQA) had issued the outcome of its national consultation on Degree Classification. This comprised two documents: i) a consultation analysis and ii) a Statement of Intent for the UK HE sector which had been devised as an outcome of the consultation.

The Statement of Intent set out the principles and actions the UK HE sector committed to in order to protect the value of its degrees. In terms of implementing the Statement of Intent, there were different approaches across the four nations of the UK. For Scotland it was accepted that the national Quality Enhancement Framework achieved this due to the various features of the framework which institutions followed, including ELIR, annual reporting to the SFC and annual engagement meetings with QAA Scotland.