As requested by ASC at the January 2021 meeting, a short note describing the scrutiny process that was followed in relation to revalidation of the joint programme had now been added to the Periodic Review report. Out of committee, confirmation had been given of revalidation by the University. 

ASC received collated responses to issues raised in the College Annual Monitoring Summaries. These were university-wide matters for which Senate Office had sought responses from the relevant services. The main areas covered were IT/remote delivery, staffing/workloads, University policy, suitability and quality of teaching spaces, University systems, staff and student mental health, University communication. A response on the latter was still awaited.

Members raised the following points:

• IT support for students: the response covered the provision of laptops and helpdesk support but the issue of poor connectivity was not mentioned. There was anecdotal evidence that poor connectivity had been an issue for students particularly during the early stages of the pandemic when teaching and assessment were moved online. Since then there had been a number of measures put in place (e.g. additional hardship payments, study spaces being made available on campus). It was noted that very few issues relating to poor connectivity were being reported during the current exam diet.
• University policy: in the Senate Office response concerning course changes made in response to the pandemic, there was reference to the future streamlining of the approval process in PIP where temporary changes were made permanent, and the timeline for this was queried. Ms Butcher advised that a meeting was due to take place in early June to initiate the review of this.
• Management of the future of online assessment: members noted the reference to 'standardisation of 24-hour online exams where possible across the University'. There was considerable disquiet in some areas of the University about this particularly in relation to the potential for academic misconduct and it was important that the 'where possible' was fully articulated. Ms Butcher (clerk to the Inclusive Online Assessment Working Group) advised that all Colleges were represented on the working group as the issues were relevant to a range of disciplines. There was a recognition that 24-hour exams had proved to be very successful in some areas but may not be appropriate for all.
• Evasys: The response concerned communications with the ASBS to promote better return rates. However it was felt that it would be timely to undertake a more general review of ways of encouraging greater participation across the University. This might involve one or two meetings of the original working group to take an overview of response rates and ways of promoting greater engagement (timing and communications around how the feedback was used/actions taken, and it was noted that the revised School Quality Officer role should assist with the latter). Another issue that had been highlighted was the inclusion of inappropriate personal comments in some responses, and while further direction around this could be included in the evaluation documentation, it was agreed that valuable assistance with this could be harnessed through the SRC student rep training. These matters would be communicated back to Dr Lowdon in the Senate Office.

Action: Senate Office

Members raised a more general issue about the tone of some of the responses. A great deal of work was involved in collating the Annual Monitoring Reports in the Schools and Colleges and some of the responses came across as dismissive, defensive and impersonal, rather than indicating an appreciation of the impact of the difficulties experienced by staff in academic areas. The impact of such responses was unfortunate as it had been such a challenging year with excessive workloads, and this contributed to an impression for some staff that their concerns, views and wellbeing were not prioritised. Members agreed that some thought should be given to the way that responses were requested, with a view to ensuring considered responses and achieving an overall process that worked towards enhancement and was as constructive as possible.

Action: Senate Office

ASC received the annual report on postgraduate External Examiners' Reports for session 2019-20. This included a summary of concerns raised and highlighted areas of good practice identified in reports. The level of reports received was broadly in line with previous years. There were 11 reports (5% of the total) where concerns had been raised that required School responses. Of these, seven responses had been received and forwarded to the external examiner and the outstanding responses were being followed up.

It was noted that reports were categorised from A - D depending on the level of any concerns highlighted. The distinction between category B and C was queried.

[Clerk's post-meeting note. Reports are classified:

A/Aspcl Very Satisfactory

B/Bspcl Satisfactory

C/Cspcl Satisfactory but some general comments made will prove helpful to course development

D Concerns have been raised that require attention.

Senate Office has clarified that the distinction is a matter of judgment. Under 'B' some minor issues may have been raised and the School would be expected to note these. Under 'C' the issues are more significant though again no response is required. If an issue that has previously been noted under classification 'C' is raised in the following year, the report would be classified as 'D' and a response will be requested by the Senate Office.]

The main issues raised by external examiners concerned assessment and feedback (inconsistent feedback, need for diversification of assessment), and marking and marking schemes (marking criteria, inconsistent marking, moderation issues, over-generous marking). Other comments covered staffing, course content and procedural matters.

Areas of good practice that had been highlighted in reports included quality of feedback, diversity of assessment, administration and response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

ASC/2020/56.1.1 Sociology

ASC received the responses from Sociology to the 16 recommendations made at the PSR which took place on 17 February 2020. Dr Harris and Professor Gray had reviewed the responses and found them to be broadly appropriate demonstrating that clear steps had been taken to address the issues identified. No major concerns were raised. It was noted that recommendation13, which concerned strategies for increasing EvaSys response rates, did not actually report whether response rates had shown any improvement. However, online course evaluations were embedded within courses and the comments would be fed into the broader review of EvaSys referred to above (ASC/2020/54.1). Otherwise, no further follow-up was required.

It was noted that some of the recommendations had been directed to more than one person but it was unclear who had provided the response. It would be helpful if this could be made clear.

ASC/2020/56.1.2 Theology & Religious Studies

ASC received the responses from Theology and Religious Studies to the seven recommendations made at the PSR which took place on 17 February 2020. Dr Doherty had reviewed the responses and reported them to be very comprehensive. It was agreed that no further follow-up was required. 

ASC/2020/56.2.1 Undergraduate Medical School

ASC received updated responses on six recommendations that had previously been considered at the committee's meeting held in October 2020. It was clear that the UG Medical School had faced particularly challenging circumstances in recent times and the updated responses provided sufficient information on actions taken, with no further updates required.  

ASC received the report of the meeting of the Joint Liaison Committee held on 8 April 2021. The remit, composition and membership of the Joint Liaison Committee for 2021-22 were approved.

ASC considered the GSA Code of Assessment - Exceptional Circumstances Addendum, noting that it set out the processes and mechanisms to be applied in the light of unforeseen and/or exceptional events outside GSA's control that significantly impacted teaching, learning and assessment activity and normal access to GSA facilities (physical and digital). The Addendum had been the subject of discussions between GSA and the University. The Addendum was geared to addressing exceptional circumstances, which might cover a wide range of possibilities, but there were circumstances that were extremely challenging to manage such as access to studio and materials required by PGT students for their final projects, and such an Addendum could not cover all such eventualities. Members queried use of the term 'collective good cause', suggesting that a better terminology could be found given that the GSA Code of Assessment was based on the University's own Code, and 'collective' claims did not fit within that framework. A reference to actions such as deferred deadlines for a whole class would be more appropriate. It was agreed that, in follow up to previous dialogue between GSA and the University, this point should be relayed. Subject to this, ASC endorsed the Addendum.

Action: Academic Collaborations Office

At the March 2021 meeting, ASC gave in-principle approval to various proposals received from The Glasgow School of Art, noting that clarification on some issues was required. ASC noted that the following additional information had been provided:

New Programme Proposal: BDes/MDes Design for Health & Well-Being (UG)

GSA had confirmed that the integrated masters degree title would be MDes Design for Health & Well-Being. This would be forwarded to EdPSC for approval as the first integrated masters (UG) MDes degree to be introduced.

For the following two new programme proposals, clarification had been provided on the exit degrees to be available. The full list of awards was as follows:

MDes Design Innovation & Circular Economy (PGT)

PG Cert Design Innovation

PG Dip Design Innovation & Circular Economy

MDes Design Innovation & Circular Economy

MDes Design Innovation & Future Heritage (PGT)

PG Cert Design Innovation

PG Dip Design Innovation & Future Heritage

MDes Design Innovation & Future Heritage

Proposed Programme Amendment BDes/MEDes Product Design (UG)

Students on the five-year MEDes stream complete two one-year placements at European partner institutions (Years 3 and 4 of the programme). The programme documentation indicated that an unclassified Honours degree would be awarded where a student exited after four years rather than returning to GSA for the fifth year. Discussions were on-going with GSA on this matter as the University Regulations did not provide for the award of an unclassified degree in such circumstances.

ASC received the report from the Periodic Review of the Mackintosh School of Architecture held in February 2021.

ASC noted the report, which included four recommendations and four commendations and noted GSA's revalidation, for a period of six years from September 2021, of the following programmes:

Bachelor of Architecture with Honours

Diploma in Architecture

Master of Architecture by Conversion

Master of Architectural Studies

It was noted that Recommendation 3 concerned reviewing and strengthening support and preparation for the Professional Practice Year Out on the Bachelor of Architecture. Paragraph 5.12 of the report included the statement that many students were unable to find employment for this part of the programme. ASC considered it important that this should be looked at as part of Recommendation 3 and it was not clear whether 'preparation' for the year included this issue. This comment would be relayed to GSA.

Action: Academic Collaborations Office

ASC received the report of the meeting of the Joint Liaison Committee held on 10 December 2020. The remit and membership of the Joint Liaison Committee for 2020-21 and the appointment of SRUC staff members as Associate University Lecturers as listed were approved.

The remainder of the report was noted.