On the question of students' continuing access to Mahara following graduation, Ms Phelan reported that initially it had been thought that this could be achieved through extending the use of the student GUID. However, there had not been any movement on this so it was suggested that the matter should be referred to the VLE Development Board with a view to exploring a solution specific to Mahara. ASC agreed that this should happen.

Action: Ms Phelan

It was noted that the consultation was expected to be issued shortly with a response deadline for Schools/RIs and the SRC set for the end of February. 

The dates on which draft PSR reports were expected to be sent to the ASC scrutineers had now been circulated. 

At the November meeting it had been noted that there were inaccuracies on the accreditation report in relation to Engineering and Psychology. These had been resolved and a revised paper (ASC 19/41) was now available online. 

Ms Butcher introduced a paper setting out some of the actions being taken forward in preparation for the monitoring round for the current session's learning and teaching provision. These were:

• Reviewing the title 'Annual Monitoring' and clarifying its purpose. This would involve improving links to Learning and Teaching planning and development.

• Revising the role descriptors and reviewing the titles for School and College Quality Officers, to include more actionable items focusing on quality enhancement and dissemination of good practice.
• Identifying a stronger role for the Senate Office in coordinating the Annual Monitoring process.
• Revising web guidance on the process, including a clear timetable for the Annual Monitoring cycle.
• Consideration of further training for staff.
• Planning for the annual Open Event on feedback and good practice.

Revised documentation would be submitted to ASC in March 2020 following consultation with College and School Quality Officers. Members were invited to contact Ms Butcher with any further comments or suggestions.

Action: All

ASC/2019/30.2.1 College of Social Sciences

Dr Doherty introduced the PGT Annual Monitoring summary from the College of Social Sciences. In particular, he highlighted the high quality of teaching, high levels of student satisfaction, positive reports from External Examiners, staff commitment to development, innovation in assessment and feedback, and work to enhance student mobility/internationalisation. A number of challenges were highlighted including the growth of student numbers and the constant sense of change which caused stresses for staff in trying to maintain the quality of the student experience. There was concern for student mental health and the College was keen to promote the student voice and encourage partnerships between staff and students and thus to build a sense of community and belonging. Particular concerns had been identified in relation to the collaborative programmes with Nankai. As with previous reports, problems were noted in relation to teaching accommodation, room booking and the Evasys course evaluation system.

It was noted that the Adam Smith Business School report had not been received in time to be collated into the College report. A separate report would therefore be submitted to ASC for the March 2020 meeting.

ASC/2019/30.2.2 College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences

Professor Woolhead introduced the PGT Annual Monitoring summary from the College of MVLS, noting that many of the themes were similar to those raised in Social Sciences. There was increasing use of on-line resources and blended learning and this had been received positively by students. On-line resources were being trialled through GIC to address transition issues for international students. It was suggested that this might be of interest to other areas of the University with high numbers of international PGT students. Improved resourcing of administrative support was having a positive impact both for students and for staff. While increasing student numbers brought increasing pressure, this was felt most in relation to the provision, supervision and marking of projects. There were particular challenges as to how to support and supervise ODL students working on 60 credit projects. It was suggested that there would be demand for Masters programmes comprised only of taught courses, or that programmes could be offered with two 30 credit projects instead of one 60 credit project and that would be easier for staff to manage. ASC was interested to note the use of 'parallel projects' as this appeared to offer potential for supporting larger numbers of projects as well as having interesting benefits for students. Other areas of the University were known to be exploring the possibilities in this area and this could therefore be a focus for dissemination of good practice. Concerns were also noted in relation to the challenge of complying with the turnaround time for marking where class sizes were large. Increasing class sizes reflected not only increasing student numbers but also the recent shift towards greater class-sharing and thus peaks of marking loads at particular times. The use of feedback calendars was important in the management of student expectations and, as had been noted in relation to the comments made through undergraduate annual monitoring, the Assessment & Feedback Working Group were currently carrying out a piece of work on the application of feedback timelines.

Teaching accommodation continued to be a major frustration, with late increases in student registrations proving extremely difficult to manage. This was compounded by late notification of relevant disability issues. It was noted that this particular issue had now been referred to the Disability Equality Group. There was a sense of frustration that staff were keen to access the TEAL spaces but availability appeared to be limited. Dr Ramsey noted that the Vice Principal (Learning & Teaching) had invited expressions of interest from staff who wished to use these spaces and this perhaps needed to be brought to the attention of staff teaching on PGT courses. Limited availability of wifi was also noted.

There was a suggestion that as PGT students were at the university for such a short period, a fast-track referral for the Counselling & Psychological Services should be considered for PGT students who presented with mental health issues. Professor Morrison noted that the focus for CAPS was on those students with the most serious issues. The University was significantly expanding the support available, developing a pyramid of different levels of provision and that the priority should be to ensure that staff were familiar with this and were well equipped to advise all students appropriately. Members discussed the fact that PGT students were often under intense pressure, (e.g. sponsored international students). There were particular issues associated with supporting distance learning students but Student Support and Wellbeing was alert to these concerns and developments such as the introduction of the Big White Wall had in part arisen from this.

In MVLS, student engagement with course evaluation was limited and staff reported that they found it difficult to modify the question sets. On PGT programmes that had several short courses, students would be asked to complete an evaluation for each and then if there was no clear response to the issues being raised, it was inevitable that they would be less inclined to complete the evaluations for later courses.

There was praise for the Academic Writing Skills Project but still a view that more support was needed for English Language skills for international students. There were positive reports of developments in assessment with moves to replace, for example, traditional essays with more clinically relevant assessments, focusing on graduate attributes and this was well received by students.

There was a discussion regarding the issue of teaching accommodation. Members acknowledged the very significant challenges involved in accommodating all required teaching in the current estate. However, anecdotally, there appeared to be instances of classes swapping informally or ad hoc action being taken, which indicated that there might be more flexibility in the system than was apparent. Members wondered if there could be scope for a specific stand-alone project investigate this.

ASC/2019/30.2.3 Summary

It was noted that the PGT Annual Monitoring Summary from the College of Arts would follow at the March meeting along with the report from the Adam Smith Business School.

ASC noted that the reports from the Colleges of Social Sciences and MVLS raised several of the issues that had been identified through the Undergraduate summaries: IT facilities, staffing, University systems, suitability and quality of teaching spaces, student mental health, assessment and feedback. As reflected in the discussion above, several of the issues raised were already under consideration at other groups or in other parts of the University. ASC noted the following should be referred for further response:

Assessment and feedback: consideration of alternative permitted approaches for the PGT independent work (alternatives to the single 60 credit individual student project).

Action: Senate Office

It was suggested that the summary of issues should be sent to School and College Quality Officers so that they are kept informed as to the various issues being taken forward. It was agreed that this should be noted as one of the actions under the review of Annual Monitoring. It was reported that there was sometimes a reluctance on the part of School Quality Officers to circulate College information to School staff, but ASC's view was that all Annual Monitoring papers should be freely available, including information about the responses given to issues raised.

Action: Senate Office

ASC noted the summary of areas of good practice including: student support, innovative teaching practice, graduate attributes, and feedback on assessed work, use of on-line resources to address transition issues for international students, parallel/group projects for the substantial independent work. Dissemination of information regarding expressions of interest for use of the new TEAL spaces was also desirable.

Action: LEADS

ASC received the annual report on undergraduate External Examiner reports. In previous years a combined report on undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes had been presented at the May meeting of ASC. It had been agreed that as the undergraduate reports were generally available earlier in the year, they should be considered separately, enabling any issues requiring action to be identified promptly.

The report indicated that 98% of External Examiner reports had been received for 2018-19, which was very satisfactory. ASC noted the main themes where there had been follow-up with the School: assessment and feedback; marking and marking scheme; staffing; and IT. Areas of good practice that had been identified by External Examiners included: creative, low stakes assessment; standard of programmes; quality of feedback; rigour of marking/grading criteria; staff engagement; and learning & teaching leadership.

Members noted comments from one External Examiner regarding the high number of first class and upper second degrees being awarded in Engineering. Dr Ballance advised that on the integrated Masters degrees progress requirements were high and it was to be expected that this would be reflected in degree classifications. It was also noted that at an institutional level, the profile of degree classifications was not considered to be a concern. Mr Brady highlighted the importance of student expectations in relation to the number of first class degrees, as disappointment at results awarded could impact negatively on NSS results in assessment and feedback.

It was noted that the distribution of degree classifications had previously been considered at ASC but this had not happened for a considerable period. It was agreed that it should be established whether this now fell under the remit of another committee or whether systematic reporting should come to ASC.

Action: Clerk

ASC received the final update report from GSA confirming that actions regarding training and development of postgraduate research supervisors were complete or in progress.  

At its meeting in November 2019 ASC had requested further information from SRUC on action being taken to address widening participation and gender imbalance. In relation to the latter, the paper provided details of some of the challenges but only limited information about the actions being taken. Professor Morrison agreed to have further discussions on this through the meetings of the Joint Liaison Committee.

Action: Professor Morrison

Professor Morrison introduced a paper highlighting a number of issues associated with the current policy on evidence requirements to support student claims of good cause. Professor Morrison spoke about one of the key aspects of the role of Clerk of Senate being to identify areas of policy that could cause unfairness. Through work that she had undertaken with the SRC, it had come to light that the local Medical Committee were advising GPs that it was not part of their terms and conditions of employment to provide evidence to support student good cause claims. Some GPs were willing to continue providing evidence on a voluntary basis and, of those, some were charging a fee and some were not. This meant that students were faced with an unequal situation in relation to their ability to comply with the University's requirements associated with the good cause policy.

Initial soundings had been taken from across the University, and colleagues at other Scottish universities had also been consulted. As a result, Professor Morrison suggested that two alternative approaches to the good cause evidence requirements should be considered by the University. One involved limited use of self-certification for short periods of illness and the other involved no requirement for evidence at all, with the latter being the currently preferred option. Professor Morrison's paper set out some of the complex policy and operational implications of changing the evidence requirements.

Members acknowledged the importance of the issue of fairness and also noted that the current system was time consuming for academic and administrative staff. It was agreed that it was timely to carry out a consultation across the University. It was suggested that the paper should draw out more clearly the different issues applying to exams, to coursework and to ODL students.

Action: Professor Morrison/Senate Office