EdPSC had requested that ASC (through Academic Regulations Sub-Committee) consider what the position would be where an external examiner was not available, or failed, to approve an exam paper. This point would be considered in a forthcoming review of the external examiner's role. 

Professor MacGregor had agreed to act as convener for the Course & Programme Approval Steering Group. The group had met twice over the summer and was currently working on revised guidance for a number of different aspects of the approval process. 

The report from the review of Annual Monitoring was now expected to come to the November meeting of ASC. 

A query had been raised about whether questions could be included on course evaluation questionnaires in relation to individual lecturers' contributions to the course. It had been confirmed that this was permitted. The guidance would be checked for clarity on this point.

On the issue of enabling students to access their Mahara accounts post-graduation, a response from IT Services was awaited.

ASC/2019/6.1.1 MVLS Graduate School

ASC received the report of the Review of the Animal & Plant Sciences Cluster and the Biomedical Sciences Cluster which took place on 14 June 2019. 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:

Conclusion: Both references to the MVLS Graduate School should be references to the two clusters under review rather than to the Graduate School as a whole.

Recommendation 1: ASC questioned whether the recommendation fully addressed the concerns being raised. It currently covered the issue of who students that are suffering from poor mental health should be referred to but not how staff should be trained in relation to disclosures made to them by such students.

Recommendation 2: This recommendation concerned the Applicant Self-Service system and required a response from IT Services. It was suggested that this should also be marked as 'for information' for External Relations as concerns had been raised about the possible impact of the system problems on students deciding whether or not to come to the University.

Recommendation 3: ASC suggested that this recommendation should also be marked 'for information' for Space Management and Timetabling as it concerned means of improving the provision of suitable teaching accommodation for students with mobility issues.

Recommendation 4: it was suggested that this should also be directed for the attention of the Assistant Vice-Principal for Digital Education as it was concerned with the requirements for computing facilities.

Recommendation 6 suggested a review of loose furniture at the QEUH in order to address student concerns regarding study facilities. As noted in the report, the concerns expressed by the students related to a lack of space as well as to insufficient facilities and therefore ASC suggested the recommendation should cover the former too.

Recommendation 8 was concerned with the identification and dissemination of good practice and it was suggested that this should also be marked for the attention of the LEADS Good Practice Advisor.

ASC/2019/6.2.1 School of Modern Languages & Cultures

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

Recommendation 8 was concerned with the need for guidance on pathways for promotion from Grade 6 for teaching staff. The Head of School response referred to the challenges associated with English for Academic Study staff for whom teaching runs over 38 weeks. ASC were unclear what issues were being referred to here and requested further clarification.

Recommendation 10 concerned the need for a University-wide process to be developed for recognition of prior experience in relation to the requirement for staff participation in Early Career Development Programme. The response simply referred to the ECDP Policy and Procedure which had been provided as an Appendix. Members noted that this document failed to address the issue in any detail. Confusion also arose from the fact that the term 'programme' was used in the document to mean several different things. It was believed that there was a process (administered by LEADS) of exempting staff from components of the programme but it was not clear whether this process was explained anywhere.

(Clerk's note: Following the meeting it came to light that the response received by ASC had been provided in relation to a draft version of Recommendation 10 that had subsequently been revised in the final approved PSR Report. It was therefore agreed that a further response would be requested in relation to the final version of the recommendation and that Professor Pittock, the Director of ECDP, should also be asked for a response.)

ASC/2019/6.3.1 Accounting & Finance

ASC received an update report on the provision of support to PGT students in the preparation of their research proposals. No further response was required.

ASC/2019/6.3.2 History of Art

ASC received an update report on one recommendation concerning the relocation and centralisation of the School administration. No further response was required.

ASC/2019/6.3.3 Management

ASC received an update report on two recommendations. These concerned the provision of support for the teaching of large classes and timeliness of the provision of feedback. ASC was satisfied with the responses and no further update was required.

ASC/2019/6.3.4 Music

ASC received an update report on three recommendations. These concerned the joint administration of the BEng/MEng programme, the Subject's review of its assessment and feedback strategy, and careers advice. ASC was satisfied with the responses and no further update was required.

ASC/2019/6.3.5 School of Law

ASC received an update report from Law on the action taken by the School to increase Evasys response rates and it was encouraging to see that in 2018-19 there had been significant increases in comparison with previous years across the range of courses. The steps taken appeared to follow the guidance available on the Senate Office website and it was suggested that this could be referred to as a case study of the improved rates achieved. Members noted that the approach used by Law involved students' use of mobile technology in class time and that there were equality issues associated with this. However, the surveys remained open for two weeks so that all students would be able to participate. The importance of ensuring such an opportunity should be highlighted in the guidance. It was noted that by conducting the survey in the final teaching session, responses concerning feedback received on assessment were likely to be based on incomplete information. However, conducting the survey after the course had finished was believed to result in lower response rates overall.

ASC/2019/6.3.6 School of Physics & Astronomy

ASC received an update on the appointment of a learning and teaching administrator for the School and on a GTA training resource developed by LEADS. No further response was required.

ASC received feedback from the Deans of Learning and Teaching on the operation of course and programme approval during session 2018-19. Generally Colleges had found the process of course and programme approval to be working well though this depended on considerable support provided by staff experienced in this area. Schools indicated that the input from College Board of Studies reps or other peers was also very helpful. The four Colleges provided various forms of training and additional guidance.

College feedback highlighted some issues with PIP such as the way that documentation was managed and a lack of software tools. Comments were made on the approval process not always being taken forward in a timely way, and also that the approval process itself was so drawn out as to make it difficult for Schools and Colleges to progress swiftly with new initiatives. Clarification was requested on some aspects of the approval process such as when consultations were to be undertaken and how to express ILOs. Staff who only engaged with the process from time to time lacked confidence in what was required. It was also noted that the administrative aspects of course and programme approval often seemed to be given more attention than pedagogical matters. One College noted that it was difficult to properly scrutinise programme changes without more detail being made available on the individual courses, and that the provision of School minutes would assist Colleges in understanding the development of the proposal.

ASC noted that the Course and Programme Approval Scrutiny Group was currently considering several of the issues raised in the report, and the comments on the functionality of PIP would be raised with IT Services. It was also noted that LEADS would shortly be publishing new guidance on the design stages for course and programme proposers.

Action: Senate Office/CPASG

ASC received an audit report on programme approval activity undertaken by the Colleges during 2018-19. A sample of proposals had been spot-checked, with the full documentation for the proposals examined. In almost all cases appropriate consultations had been undertaken and considered. In a number of cases the relevant Board of Studies minute, confirming scrutiny and approval, was not available in PIP and some of the proposals were not approved in line with published timescales. Feedback would be passed to the respective Colleges as appropriate. 

ASC received a list of new and amended programmes approved for introduction in 2019-20. 

ASC received audit reports from the Colleges of Arts, MVLS and Social Sciences. The report from the College of Science & Engineering would follow at the next meeting. ASC noted that the audit revealed a large degree of variation in the quality of the paperwork presented, that in some colleges the vast majority of the documentation had not been completed to the required standard and that consultations had not been completed prior to approval of proposals by the Schools. ASC reflected on the fact that this was not inconsistent with the feedback from the Deans of Learning & Teaching which highlighted that staff were not always clear about the requirements for course approval. It was agreed that the reports would be forwarded to the Deans of Learning & Teaching for comment and to consider whether further auditing should be undertaken. The Deans would be asked to note that the utility and success of the devolved process requires that the process is completed to an acceptable standard by both the relevant college and school boards/committees.

Members noted that the forthcoming guidance from the Course & Programme Approval Steering Group would be welcome but it was also suggested that the Group should carefully consider whether all the required documents were really necessary. ASC noted the importance of the University being able to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Quality Code.

Action: CPASG

Ms Butcher introduced the Draft Annual Report to the SFC noting that the report had already been submitted in draft and, following endorsement by ASC, would also be signed off by Court. The report covered all summaries of Institutional-led Reviews undertaken during 2018-19.

ASC welcomed the report and, subject to a small number of minor corrections, agreed to endorse it.

Professor Morrison introduced an update report from the World Changing Glasgow Assessment and Feedback Project. The report set out the agreed vision and design principles for the University's future approach to assessment and feedback. The report was being presented to a number of committees in order to gauge whether there was a clear message and whether colleagues felt that the project was moving in the right direction and laying the foundations for real transformation. ASC was asked for views on how to engage colleagues across the institution as the work of the project progressed.

Members welcomed the update and there was broad agreement that the principles were clear and appropriate. There was a feeling that the stated principles were not significantly different from what many staff would consider as current practice. Members felt that, in order to engage staff, there were a number of key issues that needed to be addressed and/or clearly articulated, in such a paper: Why does the University need transformation? How will the vision and principles lead to transformation (as opposed to transition)? What is there in the vision and principles that staff do not already believe that they are working towards? How will it be evidenced that the project has generated its anticipated transformation? There was also a view that some staff would find the content of the report difficult to engage with, in the absence of more specific examples of envisaged change.

In relation to the Vision it was suggested that 'society' should be referred to: '... At the heart of our approach will be meaningful and diverse assessment that is responsive to changes in higher education, society and the workplace.'

Members agreed that points 5 (optimal systems) and 6 (analytics) were key to achieving a step-change in assessment and feedback. There would be concern among staff in relation to new systems: would they work well and integrate smoothly with other systems and would they be straightforward for staff to implement? It was not just the number of systems that needed to be optimal but the systems themselves together with the way they were supported and the accessibility and timeliness of relevant data. 'Systems' were much broader than IT tools, as the different parts of the institution needed to be organisationally aligned. Members noted that there were several different transformation projects and there were questions as to how these would integrate with each other as this will be critical to achieving meaningful transformation.

There was a view that principles 1 to 4 could place a greater emphasis on the key importance of feedback. It was also suggested that the Board might wish to consider including a key principle that course and programme assessment should be designed to efficiently allow demonstration of the attainment of ILOs i.e. avoiding overassessment of students and excessive workload for staff.

Dr Sykes thanked ASC for the comments, which would be fed back to the Transformation Board. It was noted that a number of awareness-raising events would be taking place towards the end of October and members were encouraged to participate.

The remit and composition for 2019-20 was approved. 

The amended membership for 2019-20 was approved. 

ASC approved the remit, composition and membership of the Joint Liaison Committee for 2019-20. ASC also received the report from the Committee meeting held on 27 March 2019, noting that in-principle approval had been given by ASC in November 2018 for changes to Programme Monitoring and Annual Reporting but that subsequently changes to the proposal had been made. A request had been made for ASC to receive an update on this at a later meeting. 

ASC approved the remit, composition and membership of the Joint Liaison Committee for 2019-20, subject to noting that the SRC representative would be confirmed shortly. ASC also received the report from the Committee meeting held on 23 November 2018. Members noted under 7.5 Diversity that while SRUC reported on work to address the low representation of ethnic minorities in its student population, the comments on gender imbalance and the low representation of students from low-income backgrounds indicated less ambition to address these issues. ASC suggested that SRUC might wish to reconsider this. 

ASC noted the report from the meeting of the Joint Board held on 30 April 2019.