The Convener reported that the first meeting of the working group took place in early March. Discussions focused on the variety of approaches already adopted in relation to the project/dissertation across the University. The group was scheduled to report to EdPSC in May 2022. No proposals had yet been drawn up so, given that the approval process for changes for next academic session was already underway, it was not realistic that any significant changes could be introduced onto PGT programmes for next session. 

At the January 2022 meeting of ASC it was noted that the College of Social Sciences PG report was incomplete in relation to temporary changes made to courses outwith the normal course approval process. Senate Office was in dialogue with Dr Doherty to complete the documentation. 

ASC/2021/36.1.1 College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences

Dr Alison Parrett introduced the MVLS Annual Monitoring Summary, noting that some issues were common across the clusters while some were more specific. Students had adapted well to online learning and staff had worked hard to encourage engagement and participation. Some of the amended teaching approaches which worked well would be retained whereas components such as site/clinical visits and practical sessions would revert to in-person delivery. The College had run two staggered cohorts through the academic session and this had had many knock-on effects, creating additional pressure on staff. There were two issues most frequently commented on in reports. Firstly there were concerns around the poor English language skills of some of the students, with knock-on effects for poor engagement and participation, and high numbers of plagiarism referrals. This was a concern that had been reported through other College reports and it was noted that the situation was likely to have been exacerbated in 2020-21 by international students being based in their home country and therefore missing out on immersion in English language. Secondly, there were concerns regarding student mental health, associated with remote learning and new forms of assessment, and contributing to heavy use of good cause, extension requests and fitness to study. The introduction of Student Support Officers had been successful but increasing this provision would be welcomed. Many staff reported feeling insufficiently prepared to respond to the various support needs being presented by students.

Members discussed changing patterns of assessment, typically with end of course exams carrying less weight and more coursework being set during the semester. While the move away from high stakes assessment was being encouraged by the University, other problems were created when students had increasing numbers of assessment submissions due, often with deadlines in close succession. Many areas across the University had seen very large numbers of extension requests. It was felt that some students were increasingly focusing on teaching that was directly relevant to coursework assessments, at the expense of other parts of the course. The issues were more complex where the curriculum was flexible, meaning that it was not easy to take an overview of what students were being asked to complete by way of both formative and summative assessment across the semester. These were issues that were being taken forward through the Learning & Teaching Strategy.

ASC received the overview of the MVLS PG Annual Monitoring Summary, prepared by the Senate Office, and confirmed that the themes identified were an accurate reflection of the issues raised by the College as having worked well and those requiring University attention.

What worked well:

Student engagement

Student performance

Student feedback

Flexibility and adaptability of staff

Student Support

Themes for University attention:

University Policy

University Systems

Admissions - English Language Requirements

Student Welfare

Online exams

Student Conduct

The Senate Office would seek updates and responses from the relevant sources to these University-wide matters.

Action: Senate Office

ASC/2021/36.1.2 College of Social Sciences - Outstanding Report for Annual Monitoring

It was noted that the Adam Smith Business School Annual Monitoring Summary was still outstanding and was now expected to be received at the May 2022 meeting of ASC. The delay had been reported to be associated with a number of difficulties, including problems with retaining and recruiting external examiners, particularly in Economics where three examiners had had to be found at short notice, resulting in deferral of publication of results for semester 1. Other delays were reported in connection with industrial action and an external examiner resigning due to excessive workload.

Members expressed concern that publication of results had been deferred and there was a discussion around both the reasons for problems having arisen particularly in the last session (two student intakes, rising student numbers) and the need for clarity over the external examiner's role: as programmes moved away from high stakes end of course exams, assessment was tending to be split across a greater number of components. ASC noted that where a course had several components of assessment it was acceptable for the external examiner to comment in advance on a sample rather than on every component.

Professor Morrison noted that in cases where, for unavoidable reasons, an external examiner was not available for an exam board, students should not be disadvantaged by delay to the ratification of results. How this was managed would depend on the circumstances in each case. In the context of on-going industrial action, a question was raised about possible external examiner resignations before the May/June 2022 exam boards. Currently this was not expected to be a significant issue. Ms Butcher advised that external examiners now had a three-month notice period in their contract, so it was hoped that the number of exam boards affected would be small. It was agreed that advice should be issued to staff on what to do where resignations were received.

Action: Senate Office.

It was also agreed that ASBS should be asked for more detail on the issues that had impacted on Annual Monitoring reporting, with a view to offering support to address the difficulties.

Action: Senate Office

ASC/2021/36.1.3 College of Social Sciences - Outstanding Reports, School of Education

ASC received a report identifying four programmes in the School of Education for which no documentation had been provided for annual monitoring. Non-compliance presented risks to the operation of the Academic Quality Framework and potential consequences in terms of the University being able to demonstrate adherence to academic standards. Dr McCarthy and Mr Rogerson, Quality Officers for Arts and MVLS, stated that, in their experience, compliance with the process in their Colleges was good and that where, rarely, submissions were not complete, the School L&T convener generally had insight into the issues and was able to report fully.

It was agreed that retrospective submissions would not be required from the four noted programmes in the School of Education but that the School and College Quality Officers should focus on ensuring that the process was fully completed in future sessions.

Action: Senate Office

ASC received a paper from Professor Morgan-Thomas questioning the impact of recent developments in online and blended learning on the definition of contact hours in teaching, and the knock-on effects of this for teaching delivery, course information and guidance for students and staff.

Comments on the paper had been received from Professor Fischbacher-Smith who had advised that the issues fell under the Learning & Teaching Committee's remit rather than ASC's and that they would be taken forward through the Curriculum Change workstream of the Learning & Teaching Strategy once it was underway.

Professor Morgan-Thomas noted two main concerns, student expectations and experience: that there should be certain basic understanding of terms, and that these should be reflected accurately on course and programme specifications. There was a risk of the University being found to have misrepresented what it was offering to students if there was inconsistency.

It was noted that this was a challenging area as many areas were still in flux in terms of what their teaching would comprise in future sessions. Some areas wished to resume pre-pandemic levels of face-to-face teaching whereas others had found there were benefits associated with more mixed delivery. The content of forms in PIP was to some extent determined by external forces. It was agreed that enquiries should be made to establish whether QAA would be reviewing definitions around contact hours in the near future as this would affect the University's approach.

Action: Senate Office

Professor Fischbacher-Smith had noted that text boxes on the PIP forms (e.g. in the timetable section) could be used for narrative around the basic terms and to provide key information such as the proportion of teaching overall that would be in person and the proportion that would be online. It was also noted that there were wider repercussions arising from the terminology that was adopted, e.g. under the new Recording of Teaching Policy, teaching defined as a 'lecture' would be recorded whereas that defined as a 'seminar' would not. Once work had been taken forward in relation to appropriate terminology, amendments would be made in the PIP templates. In the meantime guidance should be added to the programme and course approval webpages to encourage the use of free text boxes to provide further clarification.

Action: Senate Office

It was agreed that a note of ASC's discussion would be forwarded to Professor Fischbacher-Smith.

Action: Clerk

ASC received the draft Common Academic Framework for Taught Degree Awards, which had been referred for discussion and comment. ASC noted that GSA was in the process of reviewing many aspects of its taught delivery. Reference was made in the paperwork to the revised GSA Code of Assessment and this would be brought to ASC for approval in May 2022.

The Common Academic Framework for Taught Degree Awards aimed to:

• Set out the principles for the design of academic programmes and awards.
• Establish a shared understanding of academic terminologies, internal and external regulations, and frameworks that underpin GSA academic programmes and awards.
• Ensure consistency of student experience through the design of programmes and courses.
• Provide a framework and guidance for the design and development of new programmes and courses, and encourage ongoing enhancement of existing programmes and courses.

ASC welcomed the opportunity to comment and commended GSA on the scale of the review and the wide consultation process being undertaken.

The following points were noted:

• Section 3.6: Each semester would comprise 15 weeks, made up of 10 weeks of teaching, one week of independent study and one week of preparation for assessment. Clarity on what the remaining three weeks comprised would be helpful.
• Section 4.6: It was noted that courses of 80 credits were permitted in the final year of an honours degree, which was higher than was permitted at Glasgow. The covering commentary gave some of the background, indicating the strong tradition of in-depth and self-directed enquiry for final year students at GSA. The proposed maximum of 80 credits was a reduction from the current maximum of 100 credits. Where large courses were to continue to be used, GSA was putting in place arrangements to ensure that students were appropriately supported, e.g. through formative assessment. This was to be welcomed.

These and a number of other minor points would be relayed to GSA.

Action: Academic Collaborations Office

ASC received the response from ESH regarding how information about the Advisor of Study role and student support more widely had been disseminated to students. The various forms of support, including a new College Student Support and Wellbeing Service, had been advertised through a number of different channels. Sample publicity materials from the Student Support Officers were provided, listing the various forms of support available and the topics on which advice could be given.

Ms Clarke had forwarded a note from the SRC Advice Centre expressing concern that money issues and accommodation were on the list of topics: these were both complex areas for which the Advice Centre had staff who had been trained to give specialist advice. It was also noted in relation to money advice that where this became debt advice, advisors were required to be registered and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

These comments would be passed back to the College.

Action: Senate Office

In relation to Recommendation 6, ASC had requested an update on work that had been agreed to be taken forward regarding enrolments that fell outwith standard semester times and the roll-over of timetabling at Garscube. The updated response indicated that the Rapid Response team at WCG had been wound up and the work had as yet not been assigned to a new team. It was agreed that ASC should again ask for an update so as to be assured that the work would be allocated appropriately and taken forward. 

ASC received an update from ARSC on a number of matters relating to Good Cause including the development of overview diagrams explaining the different kinds of Good Cause claim (extensions, missed assessment and affected performance) and information on the handling of claims involving highly sensitive circumstances. These would be finalised after discussion with Student Services and the SRC. It had also been agreed that more guidance on the management of Good Cause claims would be developed. This would promote consistency of student experience in different parts of the University. It was noted that a User Group was being set up to focus on the processing of claims in the Good Cause system in MyCampus, to include representation from all Colleges and from ARSC.

A sub-group of ARSC would also be developing guidance on the assessment of placements. This did not relate to clinical/teaching placements, which had long established assessment processes, but more to placements on a broader range of courses, particularly where students might be going into organisations that had limited experience of hosting and assessing students.

ASC agreed to approve a request to delay the revalidation of the Horticulture and Landscape degree programmes by one session until 2023/24.  SRUC was currently developing a curriculum review process which might have implications for revalidation. Also it was noted that the pilot of HNC Horticulture programme could have a bearing on the revalidation. 

ASC received the report and programme responses relating to the validation event that took place at SRUC on 3 November 2021. This was found to be a thorough set of documentation with clearly set out requirements and responses.

ASC agreed to approve the validation of the BSc (Honours) Animal Welfare Science programme, as a four-year degree utilising the existing Year 1 and 2 of the BSc (Honours) Applied Animal Science degree. The programme would be offered from SRUC's Edinburgh campus and would run from September 2022 for a period of six years.

ASC agreed to approve the validation of the BSc (Honours) Equine Science & Management programme as a top-up to the existing year 1 and 2 HND Equine Science programme. The programme would be offered from SRUC's Oatridge campus and would run from September 2022 for a period of six years.