Academic Regulations Sub-Committee

CONFIRMED

UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD

ACADEMIC REGULATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24 FEBRUARY 2016

Present:Denise Rennie (Chair),Dr Janice Allan, Dr Nigel Blackie, Dr Paul Chynoweth Janine Crosby, Dawn Gawthorpe,Janet Lloyd, Simon Maller, Ahmed Rafiq,

Dr Anita Williams

In attendance:Annette CookeQuality and Enhancement Office

Tracie Davies Research and Enterprise

Helen HemayaStudent Administration

Alison JonesQuality and Enhancement Office (Secretary)

ACTION

ARSc.16.01APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Received:Apologies for absence fromDr Andrew Clark, Dr Sam Grogan,

Professor Yiu Lam

ARSc.16.02MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING[ARSC/16/01]

Received:The minutes of meeting held on 26 October 2015

Resolved:That the minutes of the previous meeting be confirmed

as a correct record.

ARSc.16.03REVIEW OF ACADEMIC REGULATIONS FOR RESEARCH PROGRAMMES 2016/17 [Doc: ARSC/16/03]

Received:A report from the working group established to review the Academic Regulations for research programmes, so as to ensure clarity and coherence of the Regulation, as well as alignment of the Regulations with reference points such as the UK Quality Code and the Code of Practice for the Conduct of Postgraduate Research Degree Students Programmes (CoP).

Reported: i)That the review had been an iterative process for the working group, going through the document several times to remove duplication, as well as repetitive and outdated information. The working group had focussed upon the ‘core content’ of the regulations, distinguishing between ‘regulations’ and ‘procedures’, particularly in relation to the appendices.

ii)That the working group had defined ‘core content’ as: the list of awards; the requirements for approval; admission, registration, progression, transfer and conferment of awards; the requirements for supervision; assessment arrangements and the provision for appeals and complaints.

iii)That information deemed to be procedural had been removed and included in the CoP, with cross-references back to the Regulations and web links added to relevant policies and procedural documents.

iv)PGR Directors and Professional Doctorate Programme Leads had been consulted on the proposed revisions to the regulations and their suggestions taken on board as appropriate.

Noted ini)That, removal of the MRes as a taught award was felt appropriate as

discussionthis was no longer offered at the University and an equivalent MRes by research would remain available.

ACTION

ii)That the University may wish to offer Honorary Degrees awards of DLitt and DSc and thus these should be retained within the University’s list of awards.

ii)That the admission of PGR candidates was monitored by the Research

and Enterprise Committee. The Admissions Policy reflected the minimum English Language requirement for entry to PGR candidates and Taught programmes and a cross-reference from the Regulations to the Admissions Policy would be included.

ii)That there had been considerable debate regarding supervision with PGR Directors and Professional Doctorate Leads. Specific details regarding supervision and co-supervision had been included in the CoP, but the need for primary supervisors to have appropriate skills and knowledge had been included in the Regulations to reflect the Expectations of the UK Quality Code. ARSc members also agreed that potential conflicts of interest should be declared by proposed supervisors/co-supervisors to the ADAR or the Dean of School. Members advised that the Academic Roles information should be updated to reflect the responsibilities of supervisors and co-supervisors. .

iii)That the transfer of candidature to another research award should also cross reference to the CoP to indicate the alternative awards available for a candidate who had not met progression requirements at the point of assessment.

iv)That assessment must take place before the learning agreement could be reviewed, rather than prior to the progression point, as indicated in the current revised wording of the regulations.

v)That the section regarding the composition of the Panel to consider the prima facie case for proceeding to formal registration of the candidate was procedural and thus should be removed from the Regulation regarding the Candidates by Submission of Published Works: PhD only and transferred to the CoP.

vi)That the current regulation regarding the Award of Engineering Doctorate (EngD) should remain within the regulations as these specific requirements would not be covered elsewhere.

viii)That further consideration of the Moratorium regulation was required to take account of the recently published Research Data Management Policy and the need to include a specific regulation regarding data management.

ix)That the regulations needed to define the requirements for split site delivery in line with the definition provided within the recently published Collaborative Provision Policy and Procedures.

x)That further clarification was required with the School of Health Sciences regarding the timely completion of the IE for professional doctorate candidates.

xi)That clarification was required on the wording of the regulations regarding the wording of the Appeals section and Academic Misconduct

Resolved:i)That the Head of Admissions provide wording for the Regulations to include a cross-reference to the Admissions Policy.

SM

ACTION

ii)That the responsibilities of the research supervisor/co-supervisor to be updated within the Academic Roles Handbook published by Human Resources.

TD

iii)That further revisions as outlined by the Sub-Committee to be undertaken at the next meeting of the working group and, following agreement by the Chair of ARSc, the revised regulations be disseminated to the wider University for consultation.

DR/AJ

Recommendedi)That Research and Enterprise Committee recommend the revised regulations for approval to Senate.

ARSc.16.04REVIEW OF ACADEMIC REGULATIONS FOR TAUGHT PROGRAMMESARSC/16/02]

Received:A revised set of AcademicRegulations for 2016/17, that comprisedstylistic changes (including tabular format where appropriate) and removal of procedural information with hyperlinks to the relevant policies and/or procedures.

Reported: i)Following the last meeting of the Academic Regulations

Sub-Committee, the working group had been convened and met four times to continue the on-going review of the regulations for taught programmes. The working group had considered each regulation in detail and then reviewed the full set again and welcomed comments from ARSc members on the revised regulations.

ii)In addition to providing greater flexibility to the regulatory framework, the working group also proposed a number of amendments relating to:

• restriction on the re-use of credit through APL for equivalent or higher qualifications;
• capping the failed component of an assessment following re-assessment rather than the overall module mark;
• introduction of a “top-up” honours degree programme of 120credits at level 6;
• introduction of 15 credit module at level 7;
• introduction of a regulation regarding declaration on criminal convictions;
• removal of formal extensions applicable to PGT programmes

.

Noted ini)Thatthe regulations regarding Admission of Students (Section 5) had

Discussionbeen cross referenced to the Admissions Policy which is currently being updated. Members were advised that the new regulation on the

Admission of Students with a Criminal Conviction (5.3.1) reflected current legislation. With respect to the revised regulations regarding Accreditation of Prior Learning (5.4), members felt that the restriction on the reuse of credit for an equivalent or higher level qualification required further clarity regarding the PG Cert and PG Diploma which were the same level as the PG Masters award.

ii)That, whilst the revised wording of the regulations regarding Attendance and Participation (Section 6.4) was appropriate, further work was required to the supporting procedures.

iii)That further consideration was required regarding an amendment to the rounding of module marks (regulation 7.4.7) to ascertain whether the calculation accurate to two decimal places would be feasible for Banner and Gradebook.

ACTION

(iv)That further clarity was required regarding the proposed regulation 7.6.11 regarding the capping of the component mark which would result in the failing of a module when a student would have achieved an aggregate pass mark on re-assessment. .

(v)That the wording regarding concurrent study would be require further revision to reflect delivery of the two year accelerated degree route which respect to regulation 8.3.3 (c).

Resolved:That further revisions as outlined by the Sub-Committee to be undertaken at the next meeting of the working group and, following agreement by the Chair of ARSc, the revised regulations be disseminated to the wider University for consultation.

DR/JA/AJ

Recommended:ThatASQAC recommend the revised regulations for approval to Senate.

ARSc.16.05EXTENSIONS ON MASTERS PROGRAMMES (Regulation 6.4)

Reported:That the current regulations do not allow PGT students access to further supervisory or tuition sessions during an extension period beyond the scheduled length of the programme (regulation 6.4.5). However, this was contrary to UKVI regulations which stipulate Tier 4 students must continue to meet regularly with their supervisor and abide by the attendance policy.

Noted ini)Members discussed the implications of the regulation for both UK/EU students and International students in terms of parity. However, it was felt that UKVI regulations should override University regulations in this respect so that Tier 4 students should be entitled to continue to receive supervisory/tuition sessions in line with the attendance policy (regulation 1.1.7).

ii)No further changes were therefore deemed necessary to the Masters extensions regulations for 2015/16 and that, subject to approval, the regulation would be removed from 2016/17 and extensions granted through the Personal Mitigating Circumstances procedure.

ARSc.16.06REVIEW OF DEGREE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM[Doc ARSC/16/04]

Received:A proposal toamend the programme mark boundaries to address the bias towards first class honours, so as to bring the University closer in line with sector norms with effect from September 2016.

Reported: i)That following discussion at ASQAC and SELTEC on the degree classifications report for 2014/15 first degree graduates, the Sub-Committee has been asked to review the current classification system with a view to recommending changes to the current scheme.

ii)That the review should take account of the further bias towards the number of first class degrees awarded by the University as a result of the changes made to the classification system last year. The changes had resulted in anunintended outcome that placed Salford above the lead institution for the proportion of firsts awarded in the sector.

Noted ini)That the Head of Information Analysis had undertaken modelling of

discussiondegree classifications at both School and institutional levels, based upon thedifferent programme mark boundaries using common sector benchmarks.

ii)That whilst some discrepancy was noted at School level, the modelling indicated that the revised boundaries would bring the University more in line with the sector, albeit at the higher level.

iii)That, whilst the revised boundaries would bring the level of first class honours below the sector average for the School of Nursing, Midwifery, Social Work and Social Sciences, improvements in classifications had already been noted within the School following the move to graduate status for the profession.

iv)That there were no quality indicators of any decline in the standard of marking practice within the University.

v)That any further changes to the degree classification system at this time would be pre-emptory, in view of the forthcoming national review of degree algorithms which would inform future development of the University’s system.

Recommended:That ASQAC recommend to Senate a change to all programme mark boundaries to address the bias towards first class honours and to bring the University closer in line with sector norms.

DR/JA/AJ

ARSc.16.07DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING

To be held at 2pm onTuesday 24 May 2016 in Meeting Room 1, Quality and Enhancement Office, ground floor, Humphrey Booth House.

CONFIRMED