At the November 2021 meeting, ASC had been informed about the Exam Sustainability Project that was being set up to address issues in relation to future exam diets. Professor Morrison provided an update, explaining that criteria had now been agreed to determine whether exams should be held online or on-campus at the April/May and August 2022 diets. The Deans of Learning & Teaching were currently considering requests for on-campus exams, and timetabling would start shortly. 

ASC received an update report on steps being taken to improve the process of seeking responses to the various issues raised through Annual Monitoring. The aim was to ensure that requests were clear and included sufficient background information. Where responses were not satisfactory, the relevant area would be invited to meet with College Quality & Enhancement Officers and a member of staff from the Senate Office. Further details of the process would be submitted to the May 2022 ASC meeting for approval. 

ASC/2021/26.1.1 College of Social Sciences (PG)

ASC received the Annual Monitoring Report from the College of Social Sciences. All Schools had reported except for the Adam Smith Business School which would be reporting to the March 2022 meeting.

Dr Doherty introduced the report, noting the many achievements in the context of the pandemic including the move to online teaching and assessment, and good levels of student performance and student satisfaction. Many of the issues raised were similar to those from the undergraduate report: heavy staff workloads and concerns around staff and student wellbeing. Particular pressures arose from considerable growth in student numbers during the pandemic, those pressures being felt at all points of the student journey by academic and support staff. There were concerns around whether high quality provision could be maintained in the face of such high numbers. Particular concerns had been registered around IT provision (hardware, software and technical support), and the timely communication of important policy decisions from the centre and through the Colleges and Schools. Professor Morrison noted that a key principle observed with communications was that staff should be informed in advance of communications being issued to students. There was some variation in the way that this was done (discussions with Deans of Learning & Teaching, or use of broad Learning & Teaching email distribution lists) and it was inevitable that in some cases there had been a delay in all staff being reached.

It was noted that the report was incomplete in relation to temporary changes made to courses outwith the normal course approval process, and Dr Doherty agreed to provide a follow-up report with this information to the Senate Office in the first instance.

Action: R Doherty

ASC/2021/26.1.2 Overview

ASC received the overview report prepared by the Senate Office summarising the various themes under 'What worked well' and 'Themes for University attention'.

The areas identified as having worked well were:

• Flexibility and adaptability of staff
• Online engagement and assessment
• Student performance
• Student and External Examiner feedback

The themes for University attention were:

• *Staff Workload and Welfare
• *Suitability and quality of teaching spaces/timetabling
• *University systems
• *University Communication
• Online exams
• *IT Equipment
• Admissions - increased student numbers
• Student Conduct
• Student Welfare
• Quality Procedures
*Issues raised in previous summaries

Members also identified the following issues for University attention:

• The summary report included reference to increased reporting of racism against Chinese students. This was a serious matter but it was not clear from the report whether there was a concern about increasing incidence or whether it was that more incidents were being reported.
• The poor English language skills of some students was highlighted. This had been noted in previous reports and required a response as the University had a duty of care to ensure that students who were admitted were capable of full participation on their programme. It was acknowledged that there may have been particular issues arising from the disruption to external language testing during the pandemic but it was a matter that had also been brought to ASC's attention before the pandemic.

It was suggested that there might be some value in introducing prioritisation of the issues identified through Annual Monitoring, indicating those issues of high importance and those which were urgent. It was agreed that this would be considered in further discussions around the Annual Monitoring process as referred to above (ASC/2021/24.2).

Action: Senate Office

In follow-up to responses received at the October 2021 meeting, ASC received further responses to three of the recommendations. Recommendation 1 concerned the need for clarification of the role of Advisor of Study. Information had been provided on steps that had been taken to clarify the role and to explain developments in broader student support in the College. The recommendation had included the requirement for greater clarity for staff and students but the actions appeared to focus on information for staff and there was no reference to how the various roles were being communicated to students. ASC requested information on how this was being addressed, the response to be provided for the March 2022 meeting.

ASC was satisfied that the responses to Recommendations 2 and 9 (communications within the subject area and strategic planning) were sufficient and no further response was required.

ASC received the report of the meeting of the Joint Board held on 15 December 2021 and agreed to approve:

• The Remit, Composition and Membership of the Joint Board for session 2021-22.
• The list of ETS staff recommended as Associate University Lecturers (AULs).

The remainder of the report was noted.

ASC received a report on discussions between the University of Glasgow and The Glasgow School of Art to resolve the question of the award to be made to students exiting one year early from the Master of European Design programme.

On this programme students completed years 1 and 2 at GSA then spent one year at each of two European partner institutions, returning to complete their studies at GSA in year 5. There was no formal exit point at the end of year 4 as students were required to complete the final year of the degree at GSA. There had been a very small number of students who exited at the end of year 4 as, due to circumstances beyond their control, they had not been in a position to return to Glasgow. Such students had been awarded an unclassified honours degree. The Code of Assessment did not provide for this degree being made as an early exit award and, in discussion, it was also considered an inappropriate award where four years of the academic programme had been fully completed.

Three alternative approaches had been considered:

1. A student would be required to carry out additional work to be assessed by GSA, leading to award of a classified honours degree. This was rejected as the student would already have completed 480 credits and, by definition, was likely to be in a position of some difficulty (e.g. ill health). It would also be difficult to determine how much additional work would be required to enable GSA to make a meaningful assessment of that work rather than of what had already been completed/assessed at the partner institution.

2. The student would be awarded an ordinary degree. There was precedent in relation to the rare cases of students who completed junior honours abroad and were unable to return to Glasgow for senior honours. In that case the degree was awarded on the basis of the first two years completed at Glasgow and the one year spent at the partner institution. It was felt, however, that this would be inappropriate as an ordinary degree would be insufficient recognition for the 480 credits of the academic programme completed by the student.

3. The student would be awarded a classified honours degree on the strength of the 480 credits completed even though none of the 240 credits of the honours programme had been completed at or assessed by GSA. This was considered to be the best course of action as it would be the fairest outcome for the student. It would be important to emphasise that this would not be offered as a regular pathway on the programme but as an exceptional response to unforeseen difficulties encountered by the student. The context was the close collaborative relationship between the network partners that had been in existence on this programme for more than 20 years. The faculty at the various institutions worked closely together, teaching collaboratively at the Spring Workshop each year and undertaking teaching events at partner institutions regularly. GSA also had substantial experience of conversion of grades from students on other programmes undertaking study abroad at these institutions.

In discussion, ASC noted that when University of Glasgow modern language students exited at the end of junior honours they were awarded an ordinary degree despite having completed 480 credits. However, in that case 120 credits was awarded for completion of the Language Year Abroad, which did not contribute to the honours degree. A similar example was the ordinary BSc with Work Placement that was awarded where students on the MSci had completed the work placement year but not the final academic year at the University.

ASC approved the proposal that in the event of an exit from the MEDes programme at the end of year 4 due to circumstances beyond their control a student could be considered for award of a classified honours degree but this would be on an exceptional basis, with awards required to be approved by the Clerk of Senate. GSA would be asked to provide further detail of the proposed process for final approval.

Action: Senate Office

ASC received the report from The Glasgow School of Art Periodic Review of the Innovation School held on 18, 25 and 26 February 2021.

ASC noted that GSA had approved the revalidation of the following Innovation School programmes for a period of six years from September 2022:

BDes (Hons) Product Design

MEDes Product Design

MDes Design Innovation & Citizenship

MDes Design Innovation & Collaborative Creativity

MDes Design Innovation & Environmental Design

MDes Design Innovation & Interaction Design

MDes Design Innovation & Service Design

MDes Design Innovation & Transformation Design

Master of Research

ASC noted the eight recommendations and six commendations identified in the Review, and the remainder of the report.

ASC noted the full review report from the Periodic Subject Review of Nursing & Healthcare which took place on 16-17 June 2021.

Dr Ballance and Dr Ferguson had reviewed the report on behalf of ASC and had noted the following two general issues:

• Graduate Attributes on professional/accredited programmes: in the PSR it had been noted that graduate attributes were being achieved through the curriculum but student awareness of this could be improved.
  

The ASC reviewers had suggested that this might be a wider issue across professional/accredited programmes in that the focus tended to be on achieving the ILOs associated with accreditation and less on the University's own graduate attributes. Professor Morrison, convener of the Graduate Attributes Implementation Board, agreed that this was an interesting issue as some of the attributes would likely be covered but others not (e.g. those that students might be encouraged to achieve through extra-curricular activities) and it was something the Board could look at more closely. Dr Miller, Convener of the LTC for the School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, expressed an interest in engaging further in this issue, noting that MVLS had developed the Graduate Skills Award and were currently looking at developing an equivalent at undergraduate level.

• Bunching of assessment: the PSR report noted concerns expressed by students concerning workload management particularly when balancing assessments with being on placement.
  

The reviewers commented that this was an area where the University would benefit from the development of best practice, as there were limits to what could be assessed at an early stage of a one-semester course and this could easily lead to the overloading of students towards the end of the semester.

Professor Evans noted that this was an issue that would usually be referred to the Assessment and Feedback Working Group but that group was currently in abeyance in view of other on-going matters. The Vice Principal Learning & Teaching would be alerted to the fact that the issue had been raised.

Action: Clerk

Dr McCarthy noted that the review report recommended the introduction of a workload model, and that this was an issue that had been raised in other recent reviews. He suggested that this might be an area where more support could be provided to Schools, in terms of the principles and processes to be applied. Professor Evans noted that there were many variations in the way that Schools arranged workload meaning that a single model could never be appropriate across such a diverse institution. However, Human Resources would be informed about the comments received and asked to consider production of a guidance or principles document.

Action: Clerk

Mr Rogerson advised that at the Board of Studies for the College of Social Sciences it had been noted that programme specifications and associated documentation needed to be updated to reflect the fact that delivery was not necessarily either on-campus or online.

Action: Senate Office