Academic Standards and Quality Committee minutes 20 July 2021

Minutes of the meeting of the Cardiff University Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC) held on Tuesday 20 July 2021 at 9:30 held via Zoom.

Present: Ms Claire Morgan (Chair); Ms Gina Dunn; Ms Judith Fabian; Dr Kate Gilliver; Dr Robert Gossedge; Dr Julie Gwilliam; Professor Dai John; Dr Emma Kidd; Mr Sebastian Ripley; Dr Andrew Roberts; Dr Hannah Shaw; Ms Orla Tarn; Professor Helen Williams; Dr Robert Wilson.

In attendance: Mr Rhodri Evans (Secretary); Ms Helen Cowley; Ms Kath Evans; Ms Tracey Evans; Dr Catherine Horler-Underwood; Dr Amanda Rouse; Ms Tracey Stanley; Ms Martine Woodward; Mr Simon Wright.

Apologies: Professor Martin Jephcote; Dr Andrew Kerr; Professor Rhys Pullin.

1327 Declaration of interest

No declarations of interest were reported.

1328 Minutes

The Minutes of the meeting of the Academic Standards and Quality Committee held on 18 May 2021 (paper 20/667) were confirmed as a true record.

1329 Matters arising

Received and considered paper 20/799, 'Matters Arising'.

Arising therefrom:

1329.1 Regulations (minute 1307.1)

Noted that the equality impact assessment had been finalised for the following areas:

• Student Attendance and Engagement Monitoring;
• Student Complaints and Appeals;
• Student Conduct;

completing the equality impact assessment of all academic regulations.

1329.2 Examining Boards (minute 1307.3.5)

Noted that a review of the structure of Examining Boards and consideration of the appointment of a Chief External Examiner would be undertaken in 2021/22.

1329.3 Review of ASQC Chair’s Action (minute 1307.4)

Noted

.1 that a protocol had been introduced for the use of Microsoft Teams for recording executive actions;

.2 that a task would be included within the implementation plan for the new education governance structures to confirm a scheme of delegation; clarifying those responsible for taking action on behalf of ASQC.

1329.4 Academic Integrity Charter (minute 1308.2)

Noted that the mapping of our current practices against the principles of the Charter would be undertaken in 2021/22.

1329.5 Education Governance (minute 1309)

Noted

.1 that Senate approved proposals for a new education governance structure and amendments to the Academic Regulations for Academic Governance, which included the establishment of:

• College Education and Student Experience Committees;
• School Education and Student Experience Committees;
• School Postgraduate Research Committees;
• a PGR Strategy Group;

.2 that Council approved amendments to Ordinance 10:

• to establish an Education and Student Experience Committee;
• to vary the membership and terms of reference of the Academic Standards and Quality Committee;

.3 that the Head of Registry would be developing a plan for the phased implementation new education governance structures in 2021/22.

1329.6 Revalidation (minute 1310)

Noted

.1 that Senate approved the revalidation process for taught programmes for implementation in 2021/22;

.2 further consideration would be given to the development of a revalidation process to monitor, review and evaluate postgraduate research programmes.

1329.7 Changes to Admissions Regulations (minute 1311)

Noted that Senate approved the recommended changes to the Admissions Regulations.

1329.8  Changes to Award, Programme, Module and Assessment Regulations (minute 1312)

Noted that Senate approved the recommended changes to the Award, Programme, Module and Assessment Regulations.

1329.9 Remote Study Policy (minute 1313.4)

Noted that Senate approved the revised Remote Study Policy.

1329.10 Extenuating Circumstances Policy (minute 1313.5)

Noted

.1 that Senate had been advised that the extenuating circumstances policy would be reviewed over the summer period and in advance of the next academic year to address matters which had been raised by staff and Examining Boards regarding the delivery of the policy in 2020/21;

.2 that the following actions had been taken in advance of resit assessments, to provide further clarification in student communications regarding extenuating circumstances, and to update the SIMS task:

• confirm that extensions only permitted if a student has extenuating circumstances;
• students reminded of the definition of extenuating circumstances, providing examples, and the requirement to meet all three criteria: severe; unforeseen; close in time to the assessment;
• declarations submitted by students can only apply to one assessment;
• students to provide detail of the circumstance when submitting a declaration;
• explicit confirmation to be provided by the student that the declaration is accurate;
• explicit acknowledgement of understanding that a false declaration may result in disciplinary action;

.3 that a future review of the extenuating circumstances policy should consider the application of the policy with reference to assessments which required group work.

1329.11 Postgraduate Research Regulations, Policies and Procedures (minute 1314)

Noted that Senate approved the recommended changes to the Postgraduate Research Regulations, Policies and Procedures and a new Procedure for the Re-Registration of Former Research Degree Students for Examination.

1329.12 Moderator reports (minute 1315.3)

Noted that a response had been received from the relevant Heads of School to address the issues identified in the moderator reports.

1329.12  Collaborative provision (minute 1315.9)

Noted that proposals for a revised institutional approach for establishing formal taught collaborative partnerships, progression, articulation, and study abroad arrangements would be developed in 2021/22.

1330 Items from the Chair

1330.1 Planning for 2021/22

Noted

.1 that Welsh Government issued a statement on 30 June 2021 on Autumn term planning for higher education confirming that from autumn 2021, universities would be able to move away from strict 2m social distancing for students which would allow for more in person learning if low or moderate COVID risk was sustained;

.2 that students had been informed that the announcement was encouraging, offering the clearest sign yet that the 2021/22 academic year would be closer to the academic and student experience that we wish they could have;

.3 that plans were being implemented to schedule on-campus activities based on this latest Government advice, whilst also being aware of the need for contingency should the level of risk increase;

.4 that advice had also been provided to schools on the design of assessment for next academic year indicating that they should not assume that it will be possible to revert to on-campus examinations. Schools had been asked to confirm assessment methods for all programmes to the academic quality team by 3 September before updating the data in SIMS.

1330.2 The Student View

Noted

.1 that the Students’ Union had submitted its annual report, called The Student View, to the University outlining key themes and issues that it feels could be improved or introduced to benefit the student experience;

.2 that the University would provide a response to the report highlighting areas where we could work together to address the issues raised. In due course, if changes to regulations or policies are deemed appropriate ASQC would be asked to consider such recommendations.

1330.3 Executive actions

Noted

.1 that at the final meeting of each academic year the Chair asks for a volunteer to review the executive actions taken and submit a report to ASQC;

.2 the review was usually undertaken by one of the committee members appointed by Senate and volunteers were asked to put their names forward to Mr Rhodri Evans.

1330.4  Membership of ASQC

Noted

.1  that in 2021/22 there would be changes to the membership of ASQC as confirmed by Senate and Council when approving the revised education governance structure;

.2  that Professor Ann Taylor, School of Medicine, had been appointed by Senate to replace Professor Helen Williams whose term had come to an end; Professor Williams was thanked for her significant contribution to the work of ASQC;

.3  Ms Gina Dunn (Vice-President Education) and Ms Orla Tarn (Vice-President Postgraduate) were welcomed to their first meeting of the committee.

1331 Annual Review and Enhancement

Received and considered paper 20/808 ‘Annual Review and Enhancement.

Noted

1331.1 that the Annual Review and Enhancement Process (ARE) is one of the key academic quality processes which is used to inform the annual quality report submitted to Senate and Council;

1331.2 that in 2020/21, ARE had the following areas of focus:

• Programme Outcomes – progression, non-continuation, and degree outcomes
• Student Satisfaction – based on student survey data
• Module Evaluation and Module Outcomes
• Curriculum Design and Delivery

1331.3  that each school was expected to review data and information for each area of focus and produce an action plan, the Student Experience Enhancement Plan (SEEP). The SEEP was a ‘live’ document which should be continuously reviewed and updated, removing actions completed or no longer prioritised and inserting new actions if required;

1331.4 that Schools’ ARE information and SEEPs are considered by the relevant College ARE Committee which submits recommendations to the Academic Standards and Quality Committee if they consider there is a risk that the quality of provision is or is likely to become inadequate;

1331.5 that at the end of each academic year, the College ARE Committee submits a report to ASQC whose role it is to scrutinise the College ARE reports and consider the recommendations.

1332 College reports on Annual Review and Enhancement (ARE)

Received and considered paper 20/802 ‘AHSS College Report on ARE’; 20/803 ‘BLS College Report on ARE and 20/804 ‘PSE College Report on ARE’.

Noted

1332.1 that each College report confirmed the following:

• that all Schools had engaged with the ARE process in 2020/21 and reflected on student satisfaction; programme outcomes (degree outcomes, progression, award and non-continuation), external examiner reports; and curriculum design and development;
• that College ARE Sub-Committees met twice to review action plans, identify shared issues, concerns, and best practice;
• that through review and discussion with Schools, all Schools had up to date action plans that were fit for purpose;
• that where necessary, school meetings had taken place to discuss action plans, although the impact of COVID-19 had delayed the submission of the Student Experience Action Plans (SEEPs) by Schools which had in turn delayed feedback to Schools.

1332.2 Schools identified as ‘at risk in 2019/20

Noted

.1  that the BLS College report provided assurance that HCARE had been monitored and supported throughout the past academic year with significant progress made in addressing issues of concern, and consequently it was no longer considered an 'at risk’ School;

.2 that the AHSS College report confirmed that SHARE had been monitored and supported throughout the past year and a review and rationalisation of the School’s undergraduate portfolio of programmes undertaken, leading to: the discontinuation of 44 programmes; the reduction of module diets for 2021/22; and the revalidation of all remaining undergraduate programmes, to improve the student experience. The School would continue to be designated ‘at risk’ until all agreed actions had been completed.

1332.3 Delivery of teaching

Noted

.1  that the impact of COVID-19 on the delivery of education in 2020/21 across all Colleges continued to be managed well with contingency plans developed for managing periods of restricted access to campus facilities, and that each College ARE Report indicated that all Schools had been able to confirm that all students had the opportunity to satisfy programme learning outcomes;

.2  that within DENTL and HCARE, the date for the completion of several undergraduate programmes had been extended to allow students to complete the clinical teaching and placement components of the programmes;

.3  that during March and April 2021, a Review of Teaching was undertaken to ensure that in 2020/21 students had:

• the opportunity to demonstrate achievement of programme learning outcomes; and
• received a learning experience they could have reasonably expected based on information they were provided by from the School and University at the beginning of the academic year;

.4  that most Schools were able to confirm that students received a learning experience that they could have reasonably expected, based on the information they received at the commencement of the academic year;

.5  that in conjunction with the ARE process, the review of teaching had unearthed several practices that require further College scrutiny and resolution, including

• variation to the arrangements to the delivery of on-campus activities without College oversight;
• a deficit of small group teaching across several large undergraduate programmes;
• programme information not being up-to-date;
• a number of programmes where programme learning outcomes had not been specified;
• a lack of distinctiveness between degrees within the same School portfolio, allowing students to study the same modules but receive different award titles;
• the quality of School communications was uneven across the institution with many lacking formal evidence of communications provided to students;
• consistency in application of resit and repeat programme rules;
• confirmation of specific FHEQ levels in some integrated Masters’ programmes.

Resolved

.6  that the review of the delivery of teaching and the communications provided to students should be incorporated into, and oversight provided via the ARE process;

.7 that where appropriate, the University should supply Schools with standardised template texts for all core communication with students relating to programme information and any changes to programmes.

1332.4 Curriculum design and delivery

Noted

.1 that curriculum design has been discussed with all Schools, following the publication of the University’s ‘External Examiner Report Summaries’ and the ASQC paper on ‘Institutional Themes’;

.2 that resources and support to schools for curriculum development should be developed as anticipated by the Rapid Improvement Event on the programme approval process;

.3 that External Examiners noted that schools needed to improve how open book exam questions were written to avoid excessive bookwork with wider comments on the need for greater variation of assessment type and a review of the marking criteria;

.4 that some schools raised concern around the move from face-to-face examinations, particularly in terms of potential for collusion. The University Transforming Assessment project would be looking at how Schools could be supported to design assessments that minimise these concerns.

Resolved

.5 that Schools to be provided with guidance on the design of assessments to minimise collusion and a suite of support and guidance relating to curriculum design should be developed;

.6 that each College should provide additional guidance to Schools in future years, to ensure more focussed reflections and action planning on student engagement with blended learning activities and the impact of the change to online assessments on marks.

1332.5 College Analysis of Student Satisfaction (UG, PGT and PGR)

Noted

.1 that at the time of writing the College ARE Reports, NSS, PTES and PRES 2020/21 results had not been released for analysis and reflection;

.2 that in 2020, specific UG programmes in CARBS, LAWPL, SOCSI, BIOSI, DENTL, HCARE, COMSC and ENGIN had fallen below the HEFCW benchmark of overall satisfaction, lower than 60%;

.3 that College ARE reports identified that all 3 Colleges had been satisfied that the programmes identified as below benchmark in the 2019/20 data had engaged and put appropriate actions in place;

.4 that for PGT programmes there was limited data in 2019/20, as both module evaluation and PTES had been cancelled in Spring 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the pivot to online learning;

.5 all Schools had reflected on module evaluation data and no substantial issues had been identified by Schools as part of this process;

.6 that as with PTES data, PRES did not take place in 2019/20 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore Schools had been asked to provide updates on any outstanding actions from the previous academic year as well as other feedback mechanisms used by the School.

.7 that this cohort of students was the first to have been impacted by the pandemic in their second year and throughout their final year, facing multiple lockdowns and restrictions throughout their studies;

.8 it was important to recognise the effort and resilience that staff and students have shown throughout the duration of the pandemic, and acknowledge that the survey results was not a reflection of the effort colleagues have put in over the last year;

.9 that the NSS results also included data on the new set of COVID-19 questions added to the survey asking students about their experience during the pandemic and that these results would not be published externally at provider level, but the University will have access to these data;

.10 that it is likely that several subjects will meet the current HEFCW criteria for additional monitoring through 2021/22 and CESI would work with College Deans to identify the specific programmes that may be captured in these subjects and agree next steps to agree actions.

1332.6 Programme Outcomes

Noted

.1 that the Chair of ASQC had asked ten Schools to provide further information on the increase of undergraduate 1st class honours degrees in 2019/20: HCARE; PSYCH; MLANG; MUSIC; CHEMY; COMSC; EARTH; ENGIN; MATHS; PHYSX;

.2 that each School had provided an explanation regarding the degree outcome profile with the introduction of the safety net being a factor;

.3 that for postgraduate taught programmes, retention, progression, and withdrawal data had been reviewed and found to be broadly in line with retention, progression, and withdrawal data for previous years;

.4  that across all three Colleges issues had been raised regarding the useability and/or reliability of data provided about programmes and for Examining Boards and that further dialogue would take place to seek resolution;

.5 that in AHSS, PGR students, progression data shows strong improvement over previous years, due to a co-ordinated series of action plans in key Schools where progression was notably lagging behind University benchmarks. In 2019/20:

• Annual reviews completed: AHSS 83%; BLS 80%; PSE 71%
• 9-month reviews completed: AHSS 89%; BLS 77%; PSE 67%
• Interim reviews completed: AHSS 88%; BLS 88%; PSE 82%

Resolved

.6 that the Awards and Progress Committee would continue to monitor undergraduate degree outcomes and provide College Deans with the appropriate data for review in ARE 2021;

.7 that degree outcomes for BAME students should be explicitly considered for each school as part of the ARE process;

.8 that College Education Deans and College Education Managers will continue to work with BI and provide further guidance to schools to offer consistency in the way that the programme outcomes are presented to the next ARE cycle;

.9  that College PG Deans to continue working with PGR Quality and Operations team to revise the way in which the data is generated, and the methodology used, as the completion rates need to be understood contextually and, crucially, include part-time students.

1332.7 Student Experience Enhancement Plans (SEEPs)

Noted

.1 that all three Colleges had worked together to provide better guidance to Schools and a more structured template for the SEEP, to help Schools produce targeted and achievable actions and note good practice examples for each focus area;

.2 that whilst further advice and guidance had been developed for Schools when completing the SEEPs, there continued to be variability in how actions were identified, prioritised, and aligned with institutional priorities, and monitored/completed within the anticipated timescales.

Resolved

.3 that Colleges had identified that further work was needed to proactively support Schools in this area ensuring that the actions were prioritised and achievable, they were not excessive in number, and provided an indication of the effectiveness and success of actions when completed.

1332.8 College identification of Schools ‘at risk’ in 2020/21

Noted

.1 that there have been no Schools in BLS or AHSS highlighted as ‘at risk’, however AHSS had identified that undergraduate Economics was a subject area ‘at risk’;

.2 that PSE had identified ENGIN ‘at risk’ and the school had been asked to rationalise its portfolio to provide greater clarity to applicants and enable more efficient programme management.  The oversight of ENGIN would be conducted as part of revalidation;

.3 that whilst revalidation has been cited as a means to support Schools to improve practice, many of the outcomes of the process would not come to fruition for several years and that Colleges may need to support Schools to consider more immediate interventions;

.4 that consideration should be given to how each College uses the categorisation of ‘at risk’ and what the decision is based upon, as each College ARE report had identified Schools or subject areas below benchmark in a number of areas of focus but they had not been highlighted as ‘at risk’.

1332.9 Revalidation 2021

Noted

.1 that the following Schools will be undertaking revalidation in 2021/22:

• ENCAP
• JOMEC
• MUSIC
• MEDIC - Postgraduate Taught
• OPTOM - Undergraduate
• PHRMY - Undergraduate
• PHYSX
• ENGIN

Resolved

.2 that each Head of School would be informed of the requirements of the new revalidation process approved by Senate, outlining any specific matters that should be addressed;

.3 that the College Education Deans would routinely update ASQC on the progress being made by each School throughout the 2021/22 academic year.

1333 ARE 2021/22

Received and considered paper 20/806 ‘Annual Review and Enhancement 2021/22.

Noted

1333.1 that the revised approach for ARE had completed two cycles of operation, and despite the significant disruption resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020/21, it had been possible to complete ARE which provided a continued assurance on meeting baseline requirements and ensured that priority actions in Student Experience Enhancement Plans (SEEPs) had been addressed;

1333.2 that ARE remained an effective, efficient, and responsive annual monitoring process, which identified opportunities to enhance the quality of the student experience and recognised areas of good practice, however, the further enhancement of ARE to address the issues highlighted in College ARE reports and to better anticipate future outcomes would be beneficial;

1333.3 that whilst ARE was focussed on satisfying baseline requirements, there was a need to ensure the student experience was not only adequate but excellent;

1333.4 that the current four areas of focus for ARE should be supplemented with an additional area of focus – Graduate Outcomes – which had not been included as an area of focus for the first two years as data was not available;

1333.5 the need to embed the review of the delivery of teaching within ARE as a means of receiving assurances that there had not been changes to the commitments made to students at the beginning of the academic year;

1333.6 that when reviewing degree outcomes in the next ARE cycle consideration would be given to the outcome for BAME students to ensure that the action relating to the attainment gap included within the University’s degree outcomes statement was being progressed.

Resolved

1333.7 that the College Education Deans and colleagues from Registry would meet before the start of the next ARE cycle to finalise and agreed approach for the conduct of ARE in 2021/22;

1333.8 that College Education Deans continue to work with the Business Intelligence team to provide enhanced data and support for Schools accessing and interpreting the data;

1333.9 that College Education Deans work with the Employability Dean and Leads to incorporate Graduate Outcomes as part of the ARE process in 2021/22.

1334 Variations to PGR policies and procedures for 2021/22

Received and considered paper 20/801 ‘Variations to PGR Policies and Procedures for 2021/22’.

Noted

1334.1 that in response to COVID-19 circumstances, several variations to PGR policies and procedures had been introduced since 2019/20 session to help mitigate the disruption relating to working arrangements, extenuating circumstances, progress monitoring, and thesis submission and examination;

1334.2 that to continue to support postgraduate research students it was proposed that:

.1 a revised approach for considering and approving requests for study away from the University be adopted as a new policy variation for 2021/22;

.2 a number of policy variations in effect until 31 July 2021 continue, either unchanged or with some modification, until 31 January 2022;

.3 the variation currently in effect on the Policy and Procedure on the Monitoring of Research Students be lifted, with standard policy reintroduced from 1 August 2021.

Resolved

.4 to approve a revised approach for considering and approving requests for study away from the University for 2021/22.

.5 to approve variations to the following policies until 31 January 2022:

• Policy on the Submission and Presentation of Research Degree Theses
• Procedures for the Application, Submission and Examination of PhD by Published Works
• Policy and Procedure for the Conduct of Research Degree Examinations
• Policy and Procedure for the Arrangement and Conduct of Research Degree Examinations (Viva) in Alternative Formats
• Extenuating Circumstances Policy and Procedure (Research Students)
• Interruption of Study and Extension to Time Limit Policy and Procedure (Research Students)
• Policy and Procedure on Bars on Access to Research Degree Theses

1335 Quality Enhancement Review (QER) Action Plan

Received and considered paper 20/807 ‘Quality Enhancement Review (QER) Action Plan’.

Noted

1335.1 that the QER in March 2020 confirmed that the University has robust arrangements for securing academic standards, managing academic quality, and for enhancing the quality of the student experience;

1335.2 the University, as required, published its QER action plan on the public information webpages addressing the Review Team’s affirmation and explaining how it would capitalise on the commendation;

1335.3 that ASQC should review the implementation of the plan annually, until all actions had been completed, and report on progress to Senate and Council in the annual quality report;

1335.4 that since the publication of the QER action plan, the University had continued to build on the affirmation of embedding the revised Annual Review and Enhancement (ARE) process, and Senate had approved a Monitoring and Review policy which confirmed how the University monitors, reviews, and evaluates credit bearing activity;

1335.5 that due to the disruption resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the CUROP was temporarily suspended and a review was delayed until 2021/22;

1335.6 that an analysis of the wider institutional issues identified through the preparation for QER would be presented to ASQC in 2021/22.

Resolved

1335.7 to approve the updated QER action plan as detailed in paper 20/807.

1336 Confirmation of session dates for 2021/22

Received and considered paper 20/800, ‘Confirmation of session dates for the 2021/22 academic year and provisional approval of dates up to and including 2026/27’.

Noted

1336.1 that the provisional dates for 2021/22 had not been confirmed hitherto pending consideration on the arrangements for induction, teaching and assessment;

1336.2 that 2021/22 would revert back to the normal academic year pattern as it was not considered necessary to make specific variations to address the management of COVID risks.

Resolved

1336.3 to recommend to Senate and Council the academic year dates for 2021/22:

1336.4 to confirm the provisional dates for academic year 2020/27:

1336.5 to confirm the Examining Board schedule for 2021/22:

1336.6 to confirm that the deadline for the submission of dissertations for one-year full-time Master’s programmes in 2021/22 as Friday 16 September 2022.

1337 Reports from groups

Received and considered paper 20/805, 'Report from Programme and Partner Standing Panel’.

Noted

1337.1 that members were informed there were several proposals that had been reviewed by the Panel with conditions to be satisfied 6 months after initial consideration