University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Minute of Meeting held on Friday 22 January 2021 at 9:30 AM via Zoom
Professor Marc Alexander, Professor Jim Anderson, Dr Donald Ballance, Mr David Bennion, Ms Jane Broad, Ms Helen Butcher, Dr Robert Doherty, Professor Neil Evans (Convener), Dr Angus Ferguson, Ms Ann Gow, Professor Joe Gray, Mr Grigoris Kokkinidis, Dr Eamon McCarthy, Professor Niall MacFarlane, Dr Margaret Martin, Professor Anna Morgan-Thomas, Professor Jill Morrison, Dr Scott Ramsay, Mr Niall Rogerson
In Attendance:Ms Ruth Cole (Clerk), Professor Robbie Paton (for item ASC/2020/38.1)
Apologies:Professor Moira Fischbacher-Smith, Dr Louise Harris, Professor Douglas MacGregor, Ms Anna Phelan, Dr Helen Purchase
In response to concerns regarding English Language skills, the ASBS had provided information about additional support being provided to students.
In relation to expressions of dissatisfaction with the dissertation experience, ASBS had indicated that this related to restrictions on the nature of permitted projects. However, comments in the monitoring reports had also related to the student experience of project supervision. ASC had previously been made aware that ASBS were looking at the academic rigour and quality of supervision and equity of student experience. It was agreed that in his role as Quality Officer for the College, Dr Doherty would continue to monitor developments on this issue at both undergraduate and postgraduate level.
Clarity had been requested on whether temporary changes to courses made for session 2020-21 in response to the pandemic, which were now intended to continue into future sessions, needed to be confirmed through the full approval process. Ms Butcher advised that a decision on this was imminent and advice would be made available as soon as possible.
The annual monitoring summary noted a number of comments in relation to the move to on-line exams, including concerns regarding the integrity of assessment and the amount of time to be made available to students to complete the exams. A special meeting of Education Policy and Strategy Committee had taken place on 16 January 2021 to consider some of these issues, and it had been confirmed that, with a very limited number of exceptions, double time would be available for all timed exams taking place in the remainder of 2020-21.
It was noted that there were a number of issues still being addressed in relation to online exams. For example, clarity was needed on what now constituted an 'exam' in terms of course approval, and where responsibility for timetabling fell in relation to different forms of assessment. There was on-going debate in relation to redesigning assessments for the online format, and the concerns of some technical subjects (maths, science, finance, economics) around the integrity of online exams. Connectivity problems and students being based in other time zones were also relevant. Professor Morrison acknowledged that there were issues still to be resolved and that communication to both staff and students of the University's position on these matters was of key importance.
Feedback arising from the Senate Office audit had been provided to Colleges.
There was no Convener's business.
ASC/2020/32 Proposed Changes to Operation of Discretion by Exam Boards in the Award of Degree Classifications (Reserved Business)Professor Morrison introduced the discussion. In November 2020 ASC had agreed to adopt one of two options in relation to borderline classification decisions, and whichever one was chosen, this marked a very significant step forward in achieving consistency of decision making and thus fairness for students.
Under Option 1, promotion of students to the award of a higher classification would be determined by GPA alone, with the threshold set at 17.5, 14.5 and so on.
Under Option 2, promotion would be determined firstly by GPA as in Option 1 but in addition, for students in bands 17.1 - 17.4, 14.1 - 14.4 and so, it would be determined by course grade profile, weighted as per the programme structure).
Professor Morrison suggested that Option 1 was the fairest as it would ensure that no student with one GPA would be promoted where a student with a higher GPA would not. It had previously been noted that Schedule A was a non-linear grading scale, but this was not relevant at programme level; it was only at component level that qualitative judgments were made. In addition, restricting exam boards to consideration of GPA ensured that the process was administratively straightforward.
A number of members spoke in favour of Option 2, saying that this allowed a 'second look' at the general level of performance of students who were very close to the classification borderline, including those whose overall GPA had been impacted by one very poor performance (this could happen where the number of course results was relatively low). It was felt that the use of a median measure (i.e. grade profile) would be understood and accepted by students.
It was noted that some modelling had been undertaken to show the likely impact of both options. This had shown Option 1 was likely to result in some reduction in the number of First class/2.1 degrees awarded. Option 2 appeared to result in overall results profiles closer to historical ones. The modelling had not been undertaken to determine which option should be adopted but to check that there would be no significant unforeseen consequences. The Committee was satisfied that the data did not raise any concerns.
It was agreed that Option 2 should be adopted.
It was noted that the meaning of 'grade profile' was interpreted differently in different parts of the University and, that in the interests of achieving consistency of decision-making, there should be one clear definition. The Committee had previously agreed that grades should be weighted in accordance with any weighting given to different years of an honours programme. In addition, it was now agreed that course grades should be classified as being either in the lower classification or the higher classification and that a student would be promoted where at least 50% of the weighted grades were in the higher classification. The distance from the borderline of any or all of the course grades was irrelevant.
It was intended to implement these decisions in 2021-22, with transition arrangements for continuing students considered separately.
The Committee had previously agreed that the aforementioned change effectively removed 'discretion' and as such this needed to be reflected in reference to future procedural descriptions and the University Regulations.
Implications for other boundaries
The work on discretion had focused on achieving consistency and transparency in the way that discretion was exercised for those decisions where discretion currently existed. It had been noted at the November 2020 ASC meeting, however, that adopting Option 1 or Option 2 would result in a new 'hard' boundary being introduced at a GPA of 17.5, 14.5, 11.5 and 8.5, and this would create a new inconsistency in relation to other award decisions. This concerned the following:
Eligibility on achieving a GPA of .5
- Honours degree: First class (17.5), 2.1 (14.5), 2.2 (11.5), and Third class (8.5)
- Masters degree: Distinction (17.5) and Merit (14.5)
Eligibility on achieving a GPA of .0
- Masters degree: Pass (12.0) (and progress to dissertation/project requires a GPA of 12.0)
- Ordinary/Designated degree: Distinction (15.0), Merit (12.0), Pass (9.0)
- Certificate and Diploma of HE: Distinction (15.0), Merit (12.0), Pass (9.0)
ASC agreed that this inconsistency should be included in the broader review of simplifying and harmonising degree regulations that was now underway. It was noted that, in particular, any proposal to amend the current PGT progression GPA threshold of 12.0 to 11.5 would require careful consideration.
Action: Clerk
In January 2020 ASC had discussed a number of issues relating to the current Good Cause process and agreed that a university-wide consultation should be undertaken in relation to proposals for possible changes to the process. The consultation was delayed by the pandemic but the call for responses was issued in November 2020 and the results were now received by ASC.
Detailed and thoughtful responses had been submitted, reflecting the complexity of the issues as well as the significant potential impacts on student welfare and staff workload. The fact that so many had taken the time to respond in this way was much appreciated. The responses to the proposals were mixed. Professor Morrison noted that she had also recently received a number of representations around Good Cause cases involving very sensitive circumstances, and this had reinforced the need for the process to be accessible to all.
Reflections on the current Good Cause process noted a range of challenges but its strengths included the flexibility to allow students to graduate or progress with incomplete assessment. Recent experience during the pandemic, where the requirement for supporting documentary evidence had been relaxed, showed that a 'best available evidence' system was viable. (The 'best available evidence' could in some instances include self-certification.)
Proposed Option 1: The consultation had proposed a system through which students could, to a certain extent, self-certify in relation to incomplete assessment. There was a parallel with the world of work, and students would be required to reflect on their circumstances. But it was questioned whether there was any real value in this. Would staff still be required to scrutinise and judge on the claim? What sort of limits would be placed on the number of times that a student could make such a claim?
Proposed Option 2: This proposed a system where no circumstances would need to be described and no evidence provided. It was acknowledged that this would remove the current potential for unfairness in terms of access. However, concerns were raised about how to ensure that this would ultimately work in students' best interests, given the far-reaching effects of allowing students to defer assessment, including later bunching of assessment and students missing out on feedback at the intended time. There were significantly differing views on whether the saving of staff time (not needing to scrutinise and judge claims) would be outweighed by new burdens (setting alternative assessments, tracking completion of assessment, advising students on the implications of deferring assessment). There were significant concerns around whether, under such a system, students would be able to graduate with incomplete assessment.
Other developments were noted as being relevant to this issue, such as the drive to lessen reliance on high stakes end-of-course assessments, and the move away from traditional exam-hall exams, with some early indications that students may find on-line assessments easier to manage, especially where those assessments remained open for 24 hours or one week instead of for a short time period. The overall impact of these developments was not yet known.
Responses to the consultation also highlighted the important link between the Good Cause process and the identification of students in need of support, and the fact that it would be beneficial to have a clearer overall framework covering Good Cause, chronic issues and Fitness to Study.
While there was a range of responses to the proposals, very significant concerns had been expressed in relation to the possible implications of adopting Option 2. Overall, the balance of opinion appeared to be in favour of working with the existing system - or retaining a number of its features - while also broadening the definition of 'supporting documentary evidence', to include self-certification in some situations. Members expressed disquiet at the tone of some of the responses which suggested a lack of trust in students. There was a view that the system would be improved by a more compassionate approach.
ASC agreed to ask Academic Regulations Sub-Committee to bring proposals to ASC on a revised Good Cause process in line with these views. The aim would be to have a process that was accessible to those who need it, that accommodated the difficulties of obtaining supporting evidence, and that involved a manageable workload for staff.
ARSC should consider:
- Broadening the range of evidence that could be accepted
- The parameters around self-certification
- The relationship between Good Cause and Fitness to Study
- Possible differences in approach at Honours and non-Honours
- Accompanying guidance
It wa noted that ARSC may be in the first instance wish to bring principles to ASC for approval.
-
Action: ARSC
ASC/2020/34.1.1 College of Social Sciences
Dr Doherty introduced the report, noting the current heavy workloads which had resulted in the report being submitted late. While the report still noted positives associated with the way that staff had embraced the recent changes, there appeared to be a change of tone since completion of the undergraduate report, with staff having been working under pressure for a longer time and being more aware of the on-going challenges arising from the pandemic.
A comment recording a perception that the IT hardware on the Dumfries Campus was relatively poor and inferior to that on the main campus was noted, and Dr Doherty agreed to ask for clarification on this, as to whether it was only a perception or whether there was an issue that needed to be addressed.
The Summary provided by the Senate Office identified the following as themes identified in the 'What Worked Well' section: Response of staff to the challenges of online delivery; Online exams processes; the No Detriment policy; Staff support - teaching; External Examiner responses.
The following were identified as issues for University attention:
- IT/remote delivery - including provision of equipment and support for staff, access to software, hardware and internet connectivity for students
- Staffing - including workloads and related welfare issues
- University policy - covering issues such as the future nature of PGT programmes, format of future exams, concerns regarding plagiarism and collusion.
- Suitability and quality of teaching spaces - noting particularly the continued increase in student numbers.
- Student support/mental health
- University communication - issues were identified with timeliness and consistency of messaging, particularly in relation to the No Detriment policy and Good Cause.
- Library resources, particularly in relation to the pivot to online delivery.
- Continued concerns about students' English language skills in the Adam Smith Business School. This was echoed in the School of Social and Political Sciences.
The Committee also noted that, under the heading of 'Student support - IT', the summary had included reference to Chinese students having faced racism in the context of the pandemic, and a concern that awareness of racism and other forms of discrimination should have a higher prominence in the University. It was agreed that this should be highlighted as a theme of its own.
ASC was satisfied that the themes identified were an accurate reflection of the issues raised by the Colleges. The Senate Office would seek updates and responses from the relevant sources to these University-wide matters.
Action: Senate Office
ASC received the annual report, noting good return rates and a high level of satisfactory reports. The Appendices showed points of concern that had been raised but these represented a very small number from the population as a whole.
ASC received the report from the Glasgow School of Art PSR of the School of Simulation and Visualisation held on 28 and 29 July 2020.
ASC noted the revalidation from September 2021 of the following programmes for a period of six years:
MDes Sound for the Moving Image
MSc Heritage Visualisation (formerly MSc International Heritage Visualisation)
MSc Serious Games and Virtual Reality
BDes (Honours) Sound for the Moving Image
BSc (Honours) Immersive System Design.
ASC noted the re-accreditation of MSc Medical Visualisation and Human Anatomy by the Institute of Medical Illustrators for a period of five years from January 2020.
ASC also noted the remainder of the report including the five recommendations and seven commendations.
As the MSc Medical Visualisation and Human Anatomy was a GSA joint programme with the University of Glasgow, ASC was asked to approve the recommendation that the programme be revalidated for a period of six years from September 2021. Professor MacFarlane noted that while no concerns had been raised, the report did not specifically refer to the scrutiny process and that should be included in order that revalidation could be confirmed.
Action: Academic Collaborations Office
ASC/2020/37 Update: The Assessment & Feedback Project
ASC received a written update report from Dr Sykes, the WCGT Academic Design Lead. This highlighted progress in relation to Moodle enhancements in assessment and marking, the Student Portal on My Grades and feedback, and the Grade Capture and Aggregation Tool.
Members noted that the new tools were being piloted in Scottish Literature and Law with French, both of which were areas that had relatively small student numbers. It was important that areas with larger student numbers should be involved at an early stage.
Professor Paton from the Adam Smith Business School presented a paper proposing alternatives to the traditional 60 credit dissertation on PGT programmes. These would include collaborative projects, capstone/portfolio projects and group projects. The projects would always include a substantive (60-100%) individual component and would carry 40 or 60 credits.
The proposal followed on from work in the College to develop projects with more progressive formats, as there was a view that vocational outcomes were not necessarily well served by a traditional dissertation. ASC was asked specifically to consider the possibility of offering 40 credit projects to further support these developments.
The rationale was that shorter-term engagements, associated with shorter projects, would lead to more opportunities being made available with employers. Vocational outcomes did not need to involve internships or placements, rather they could be built around practical projects and tasks completed remotely from the host organisation. With increasing student numbers, a large pool of opportunities would be required. The greater flexibility associated with a shorter project would open up more opportunities including for international project-style engagements.
It was also noted that by offering 40 credit projects, this would create the opportunity to introduce additional taught credits into the curriculum associated with the formal assessment of personal skills and attributes, or to address requirements set by professional bodies or accreditors. The areas to be covered might include knowledge and skills related to data analytics, decision making and leadership.
In discussion, ASC expressed support for the development of projects with a greater vocational focus. While there were advantages to incorporating group work into the dissertation component of the degree, Boards of Studies still required to be satisfied that the project represented a substantial piece of individual work by the student. The reliance on groupwork in connection with a piece of high stakes summative assessment could be problematic and it was noted that this was unpopular with many students.
In relation to the proposal that the project could carry only 40 credits, members suggested that even where students had shorter engagements with companies, the work coming from this could be structured in such a way that it would amount to 60 credits. If an additional 20 credits of taught courses were to be incorporated into the curriculum this would mean more pieces of summative assessment to be managed by students, which might not be welcome. It was not clear that the overall staff workload would be reduced by such a move. It was noted that across the sector there had been some movement recently towards more masters degrees including a smaller independent piece of work, but the majority of Russell Group universities still required this component to carry 60 credits.
ASC commended the College of Social Sciences' work on developing more vocationally focused projects. However, it was agreed that at this time there should be no amendment to the University-wide requirement for an independent piece of work worth at least 60 credits to be completed for the award of a masters degree.
The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 19 March 2021 at 9.30am via Zoom.
Created by: Ms Ruth Cole