University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Revised Minute of Meeting held on Friday 26 November 2021 at 9:30 AM in the Melville Room
Professor Marc Alexander, Dr Donald Ballance, Ms Jane Broad, Ms Helen Butcher, Dr Paul Castro, Dr Robert Doherty, Professor Neil Evans (Convener), Dr Kelum Gamage, Professor Ann Gow, Professor Joe Gray, Dr Sarah Honeychurch, Dr Eamon McCarthy, Professor Niall MacFarlane, Professor Douglas MacGregor, Professor Anna Morgan-Thomas, Ms Anna Phelan, Mr Niall Rogerson.
In Attendance:Ms Ruth Cole, Dr Helen Purchase (for item ASC/2021/15).
Apologies:Mr David Bennion, Ms Mia Clarke, Dr Angus Ferguson, Professor Moira Fischbacher-Smith, Dr Willie Miller, Professor Jill Morrison.
The minutes were approved.
Dr Lowdon had provided an update on two matters:
- In relation to improving evaluation student response rates, the Senate Office guidance was being updated and would be re-circulated to Schools and RIs via the School Quality & Enhancement Officers, with follow-up meetings where required. In the more medium term a general review was planned given the changed context of course delivery.
- Regarding the issue of inappropriate and personal comments made in course evaluation, a meeting would be arranged with the SRC to discuss what guidance could be incorporated into the Student Rep Training and how best to communicate with students to ensure that they do not leave inappropriate comments in surveys.
Professor Evans drew members' attention to the message from the Clerk of Senate that had been sent to Schools and RIs earlier in the week in relation to the sustainability of University exam diets from spring 2022 and onwards. The message highlighted a number of different factors which were now coming together to create an extremely challenging picture: increases in the number of students, course combinations and end-of-course exams; an increase in the proportion of students declaring a disability that require exam adjustments; and the need to accommodate a combination of on-campus and online exams. The University's Senior Management Group had agreed that these issues should be addressed through a short-life Aurora-type project, to be called the Exam Sustainability Project. This would have the task of establishing what options the University has and what changes need to be made to processes and systems within the time available to permit future exams diets, including resit diets, to take place securely. Ms Broad noted that exam timetabling was the point at which a very large number of individual decisions and actions came together, and the University's current systems and processes were not robust enough to manage the size and complexity of the demands being placed on them. As an indication of the size of the task, at the winter 2021 diet, there would be 47,000 exam instances taking place over a nine-day period.
It was noted that part of the overall picture was the need to balance the continuing development of online exams with the return to campus-based exams where this was judged to be the appropriate form of assessment. Recent work carried out by the Inclusive Online Assessment Working Group and the Assessment Planning Management Group had led to changes being implemented at the December 2021 diet, such as the replacement of double time with an arrangement where students were expected to spend the designated time on the paper with 30 minutes available for the upload of answers. Disabled students would receive additional time where this had been identified through a needs assessment. Members thanked Ms Broad for the information and it was agreed that it would be useful to circulate further information that had been presented to SMG and had led to the decision to set up the Exams Sustainability Project.
Action: J Broad
Dr McCarthy asked whether changes currently being input to PIP reflecting the move to the various online exam formats would be fed into the project. Ms Broad explained that the information in PIP was not used in timetabling, and that the timetabling team were dependent on information being supplied directly by the Schools/RI. ASC expressed its concern that the University's lack of a comprehensive curriculum management system meant that many such inefficiencies were exacerbating the current difficulties.
ASC/2021/15.1.1 College of Arts (UG and PG)
Dr McCarthy introduced the report, highlighting that many positives had been identified in relation to student experience and student performance. The dominant theme in relation to what needed more work was student support, particularly in relation to mental health and facilities such as the Library and IT.
ASC/2021/15.1.2 College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences (UG)
Mr Rogerson noted that while there were common themes in the MVLS report (e.g. concerns around staff mental health and challenging workloads), the different Schools had very different requirements and this was difficult to reflect in a concise report. There were representations about Schools wishing to have greater autonomy on how to respond to situations arising locally. There was reflection on some cohorts having been better supported than others during the last session, and specific issues arising from the switch to online teaching and assessment: student isolation arising from not being able to attend in-person labs, and different subject areas having different constraints (e.g. imposed by the accrediting bodies in relation to online assessment).
ASC/2021/15.1.3 College of Science & Engineering (UG and PG)
Dr Purchase also highlighted concerns regarding staff workloads, particularly with the switch to online teaching and assessment, resulting in a negative impact on morale. Staff felt that they were not able to do their jobs properly, and were unable to keep up with changes, the greatest burden tending to land on a small number of staff. The non-standard start dates had led to many unforeseen administrative and structural problems, which added to the already increased workload. Significant concerns had been expressed regarding online exams and there was a strong desire for the option of on-campus exams being made available at future diets. Concerns were highlighted regarding the estate, with the example of the Geographical and Earth Sciences building being in a serious state of disrepair and requests for remedial work over a long period of time not being answered.
ASC/2021/15.1.4 College of Social Sciences (UG)
Dr Doherty highlighted the exceptional response of staff to the challenges of the year, with a professional approach, adaptability and hard work meaning that academic standards were maintained. Many positive innovations in pedagogy and assessment had been identified. Staff had faced long hours, a high proportion of screen time, the inability to take annual leave, loss of administrative support and extraordinary efforts required to engage students in online learning. The report also reflected the many challenges faced by students e.g. in relation to digital exclusion.
The Convener noted from the report the concern raised at the risk of Accountancy and Finance losing accredited status if there was no return to in-person timed exams. The Adam Smith Business School had been asked to provide further information on this and had now been put in touch with staff on the Exam Sustainability Project. It was noted that the University had already accepted accreditation requirements to be a key criterion in relation to justifying the return to in-person timed exams.
ASC/2021/15.1.5 Overview
It was noted that the Annual Monitoring reports included an additional section for the 2020-21 session on temporary course changes arising from adjustments in teaching and assessment made in response to the pandemic. ASC agreed that a lot of useful information was included though these were only examples of the changes. There had been a great deal of innovation in the last two sessions, much of which had been very successful and was planned to be used on a permanent basis.
Members discussed the references to the dramatic increase in cases being referred under the Code of Student Conduct for plagiarism, collusion and other breaches associated with online exams. Ms Butcher acknowledged the seriousness of the issue, with the Student Conduct team having been overloaded and cases taking a long time to conclude. This was going to be referred to at the December meeting of Senate through the Senate Assessors' annual report. There were significant concerns around academic integrity as well as in relation to the welfare of students who had to wait a long time for the outcome of referrals, though recently there had been intensive work to reduce the backlog. It was also noted that for the December 2021 diet, 'double time' in timed online exams was no longer being offered: students would be given the designated time for the exam with an additional 30 minutes to upload answers, and disabled students would receive extra time where this had been identified through a needs assessment.
Given the many issues arising from the switch to online teaching and assessment during the pandemic, there was a discussion around the University's preparedness to respond to similar crises in the future. It was noted that important questions around risk and future-proofing were being addressed in the Learning & Teaching Strategy 2021-25.
The Overview prepared by the Senate Office identified themes under the general headings of 'what worked well' and 'themes for University attention', and gave examples of the various issues. Some of the themes featured in both lists as the positives often related to the achievement and endeavour of staff and students in the context of extremely challenging circumstances. Members agreed a number of amendments to the Overview, using the following headings:
What worked well:
- Flexibility and adaptability of staff
- Online engagement and assessment
- IT improvements - interactive technologies
- Student performance
- Student feedback
Themes for University attention:
- Admissions - increased student numbers, and English language requirements
- Staff workloads and welfare
- Staff and student mental health
- IT/Remote delivery and equipment
- Suitability and quality of teaching spaces/timetabling
- Online assessment and exams
- University policy
- University communication
- University systems
- Student Conduct
- Issues raised in previous summaries
The final version of the Overview, including examples of comments, is provided at Appendix 1. Responses would be sought after consideration of the Social Sciences PGT College Annual Monitoring Summary at the January 2022 meeting.
The Overview report also referred to ASC's request for work to be undertaken to address the tone of some of the responses to University-wide issues received previously. The Senate Office had initially proposed that the future process for securing responses would be conducted via in-person meetings between the CQ&EOs, representatives from the Senate Office and key individuals from University Services and other relevant areas. However, there were logistical challenges with such an approach. Members discussed an alternative approach which would aim to reduce the 'faceless' aspect of the process, with Senate Office assisting by identifying key people in the services who would be able to have dialogue with the academic areas raising issues. It was acknowledged that there was work to be done on both sides, with the requests for responses to be framed less as complaints and more as constructive feedback, with an understanding that there would always be limitations on what the services were able to do. It was agreed that the four CQ&EOs should meet before ASC to identify the key areas for which responses would be sought and to identify where more contextual information around the issue was needed from the School/College before requesting the response.
Action: Senate Office
ASC received the schedule of reviews taking place during 2021-22 and noted the allocation of members to review full reports and recommendations. ASC reviewers would be advised of the relevant timescales in due course.
ASC/2021/16.2.1 School of Computing Science
ASC received an update from the review of Computing Science which took place on 4-5 March 2020. This detailed the responses and progress made to date in implementing the 16 recommendations.
Professor Gow and Dr Ferguson had reviewed the responses and found them in the main to be full and constructive. It was agreed that further updates should be requested for the May 2022 ASC meeting for the following:
Recommendation 1: There was reference to subject-based GTA training but it was not clear from the response whether this was being offered as an alternative to the centrally delivered training. ASC's understanding was that the latter was mandatory.
Recommendation 7: The response acknowledged that there had been a delay in taking forward the work on reviewing and developing assessment.
Recommendation 10: Development and recognition of CPD for events taking place in the School had not yet been taken forward.
ASC/2021/16.3.1 School of Veterinary Medicine
ASC received updated responses on two recommendations arising from the review of Veterinary Medicine that took place on 18-19 February 2019. Recommendation 6 concerned difficulties associated with enrolments falling outwith standard semester times and roll-over of timetabling at Garscube. The issue had been referred to the World Changing Glasgow Team but had not yet been taken forward. It was agreed that the Vet School should indicate to WCGT that ASC had asked for the current target date for the work, and that this should be reported to the ASC meeting in March 2022.
ASC received the annual report, noting a slightly lower return rate than in previous sessions. In view of the exceptional pressures of the 2020-21 session this figure was considered satisfactory. A number of common themes were identified from reports and the Appendices included examples of comments on the following themes: online examinations, assessment format, feedback on assessment, and Moodle. ASC noted overlap with some of the themes emerging through Annual Monitoring. Many of the comments on timed online exams were concerns around students receiving 'double time', and, as noted above (ASC/2021/15.1.5), different arrangements would be in place for the December 2021 diet.
Professor Alexander introduced an update report on two ARSC meetings held in June 2021 and subsequent discussions. A University-wide consultation on Good Cause in January 2021 had concluded that the requirement for students to provide a reason for claims and some supporting evidence should be retained. ARSC had been asked to consider a number of questions flowing from this including how the definition of evidence could be broadened and how the guidance on a number of features of Good Cause could be improved.
• Requirement for supporting evidence
The difficulty of obtaining supporting evidence (e.g. a letter from a GP) was well known. The view was that students were generally willing and able to speak to someone about their circumstances and the requirement for some third-party evidence made it more likely that the extent of a student's difficulties would become clearer to the University in order for appropriate referrals for support to be made. Also the timely obtaining of such evidence could be helpful in relation to what was required at a later stage for consideration by a progress committee. Should the third-party evidence be tenuous or weak, students could explain in the claim why stronger supporting evidence was not available.
ASC agreed to endorse ARSC's recommendation that Good Cause claims should be supported by third-party evidence. It was noted that expanded guidance would be developed around the forms of evidence that would be acceptable and the circumstances where staff such as Advisors/Advising Teams and Student Support Officers could provide supporting statements. (It was also noted that during 2021-22, in light of continuing difficulties associated with the pandemic, the expectation was that Good Cause claims did not require, but could be strengthened by, provision of evidence. Students were expected to make reasonable efforts to provide such evidence. The requirement for supporting evidence, as stated in the Code of Assessment, would be reinstated once circumstances allowed.)
• Sensitive circumstances
A key theme in discussions had been the accessibility of the Good Cause process to students who experienced particularly sensitive and/or distressing circumstances. Such students might be concerned about those circumstances being recorded in a central records system and having to describe the events in question could in itself be extremely distressing. The view of ARSC was that in such circumstances it should be acceptable for the student to indicate the nature of the circumstances to a senior member of staff who could then provide a general statement for the Good Cause claim in lieu of a written description of the circumstances. The statement would confirm that the student had made the member of staff aware of adverse circumstances, and that those circumstances were such as to have a likely impact on the particular assessment(s).
ASC agreed to endorse ARSC's proposal, noting that this needed careful guidance as to what circumstances would justify this approach, how the staff involved would manage communications, what would need to be completed within the Good Cause system, and in what circumstances the Exam Board (or sub-group) might request additional information from the advising staff member. The member of staff would at all stages need to ensure that the student was comfortable with the level of detail being disclosed.
• Place of Good Cause within the overall framework of support for students
Throughout the various discussions there were references to the fact that Good Cause claims often alerted the University to difficulties that students were facing, and that such claims might result in a member of staff contacting the student to enquire about their welfare, or information being passed to the student about available support services. ARSC noted that this was not one of the formal functions of the Good Cause process and that relying on Good Cause to carry out this function would put an unreasonable burden on it. In addition, given the timing of assessment, earlier identification of issues through other mechanisms was preferable. ASC supported ARSC's proposal to take forward a piece of work with Student Support & Wellbeing to show more clearly where the Good Cause process fitted within the overall framework of student support in order to help students identify the most appropriate and timely means of addressing their difficulty.
ASC noted a list of actions identified to improve the processes around Good Cause and the understanding of it by students and staff (those advising students as well as those who administer the process).
Action: ARSC/Senate Office
ASC acknowledged that Good Cause remained a very challenging area and that the issues would remain under review. The number of claims was continuing to grow, with the associated work and support needs resulting in a very significant burden which tended to fall on a small number of staff, which in itself raised issues of equality, and the position adopted on the requirement for third-party evidence was not ideal. The issues were compounded by the limitations of the system used for lodging and processing claims. ASC noted that this was an area where the lack of a comprehensive case management system was having a significant impact.
ASC received the audit report on programme approval activity carried out during 2020-21. Auditing showed that, in the main, approval processes were followed and appropriate information was uploaded to PIP. However, there was some variation in the way that incomplete proposals were handled. In one case there were several issues outstanding at the time of the Board meeting (consultations incomplete) with the Convener left to complete the scrutiny process and confirm approval. The guidance on programme approval was clear that the Board should be presented with the full information. In another case, the Board minute indicated that approval had been given but did not say that this was subject to completion of outstanding actions that had been identified by the Board.
Feedback would be provided to Colleges on the importance of the full trail of the approval process being evident in PIP with:
- the Board considering all relevant information associated with the proposal; and
- approval withheld until all substantial issues had been addressed; and
- confirmation that minor outstanding matters had been approved to the Convener's satisfaction.
ASC noted the following full reports for reviews which had taken place in the Spring of 2021:
- School of Geographical & Earth Sciences
- Philosophy.
The Committee noted the summary of accreditation visits and reviews undertaken by professional, statutory or regulatory bodies during session 2020-21.
The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 28 January 2022 at 9.30am via Zoom.
Created by: Ms Ruth Cole