understanding major & annual review september 2014 donna crighton, cheryl strong & nikki...
TRANSCRIPT
Understanding Major & Annual Review
September 2014
Donna Crighton, Cheryl Strong & Nikki Sowerby
Research Section, QMD, Academic Registry
Session Objectives
By the end of this session, you will:
• Have an overview of the Major/Annual Review processes
• Know what sources of guidance are available for the Major/Annual Review processes and where to find them
Useful Contacts
• Faculty/Department– Departmental Research Degree Coordinators (DRDC’s)– Chair, Faculty Research Degree Committee (FRDC)
• Central– Research Section, Academic Registry
• Donna Crighton, Faculty Advisor (Research) Ext. 3288• Cheryl Strong, Faculty Advisor (Research) Ext. 3050• [email protected]• [email protected]• [email protected]
Academic Regulations
• Research Students are governed by the Regulations for Higher Degrees by Research , Regulations for Professional Doctorates or Regulations for the Integrated Doctorate Programme
• Available at:http://www.port.ac.uk/researchdegrees
Postgraduate Research Handbooks
• Initial point of reference for all Research Students and Supervisors (updated annually)
• Guidance on the key processes and other circumstances that may arise
• Available at: www.port.ac.uk/researchdegrees
Reviewing Process• UK Quality Code for Higher Education (Part B –
Assuring and Enhancing Academic Quality)
– Chapter B11: Research Degrees(The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), June 2012) http://www.qaa.ac.uk/
• Indicator 13– “Higher education providers put in place clearly defined
mechanisms for monitoring and supporting research student progress, including formal and explicit reviews of progress at different stages. Research students, supervisors and other relevant staff are made aware of progress monitoring mechanisms, including the importance of keeping appropriate records of the outcomes of meetings and related activities.”
Major Review Process
• “The purpose of the assessment procedure is to assess whether the student has the capability to complete satisfactorily, within the prescribed time limits, a PhD or MD thesis.”
(Regulations for Higher Degrees by Research, 2013, Major Review, Section 6, 1.2.1)
Major Review
Major Review
Full-Time PhD/MD – End
of Year 1
Part-Time PhD/MD & Integrated
Doc – End of Year 2 MPhil students
may submit to upgrade
(within these timescales)
Major Review Submission Dates
Major Review
October intake =
30th September
February intake =
31st January
Exceptional June intake = 31st May
Further information on the Major Review process is available in the University Postgraduate Research
Student Handbook
Flowchart of the Major Review Process
Academic Registry send reminder to PGR Student and First Supervisor for Major Review
to be submitted by ~DATE~
PGR Student completes Major
Review document
First Supervisor completes UPR10 & e-mails to Chair, FRD Committee for Faculty Assessor to be appointed
Flowchart of the Major Review Process (cont’d 2)
Report & UPR10 sent to Assessment Panel (FS & Two Assessors) by Academic Registry
PGR Student submits document to Academic
Registry [email protected]
UPR10 sent to Academic Registry by Chair, FRD
Committee [email protected]
Flowchart of the Major Review Process (cont’d 3)
First Supervisor arranges Major Review Meeting
All Panel Members and PGR Student in attendance at the
Major Review Meeting
Flowchart of the Major Review Process (cont’d 4)
Decisions at Major Review meeting
Confirm Registration (PhD or MD) – upgrade to PhD if MPhil
Student
Application Insufficient: Final Review meeting
required (see cont’d 5)
Assessment Panel’s recommendation sent to Academic Registry who confirm decision in writing
Flowchart of the Major Review Process (cont’d 5)
Work required and submission date notified to PGR Student by Academic Registry
Application Insufficient: Final Review meeting required
After submission documents are sent to the panel, First Supervisor organises Final Review meeting date, time &
venue
Flowchart of the Major Review Process (cont’d 6)
Final Review meeting decisions
(confirmed in writing)
Confirm Registration (PhD or MD)
Upgrade MPhil to PhD
Further Supporting Evidence is necessary
Change PhD to MPhil
Continue with MPhil registration
Discontinue registration
Annual Review Process
• “The purpose of the assessment procedure is to assess whether the student is actively engaged in the research programme and making satisfactory progress.”(Regulations for Higher Degrees by Research, 2013, Annual Review, Section 7, 1.2.1)
Annual Review
Annual Review
All PGRS for each year of registration
Unless, a Major Review
is due
Unless, the PGRS has interrupted
their studiesUnless, the PGRS has submitted
for examination
Annual Review Submission Dates
Annual Review
October intake = 30th September
February intake = 31st JanuaryExceptional June
intake = 31st May
Further information on the Annual Review process is available in the University Postgraduate
Research Student Handbook
Flowchart of the Annual Review Process
Academic Registry send reminder to PGR Student and First Supervisor for Annual Review
to be submitted by ~DATE~
FRDC’s supply list of Reviewers prior to
deadline
First Supervisor completes UPR8B
PGR Student completes UPR8A and
gathers additional evidence as required
Academic Registry request list of
Reviewers from FRDC’s
Flowchart of the Annual Review Process
UPR8A, UPR8B & required evidence sent to Review Panel by Academic Registry
PGR Student submits documents to Academic
Registry [email protected]
UPR8B sent to Academic Registry by First
Supervisor [email protected]
Flowchart of the Annual Review Process
Annual Review Meeting arranged
All Panel Members and PGRS in
attendance at the Annual Review
Meeting
Flowchart of the Annual Review Process
Decisions at Annual Review meeting
Confirm Registration
Application Insufficient: Final Review meeting
required
Review Panel’s recommendation sent to Academic Registry who confirm decision in writing
Confirm Registration, with recommendations
Flowchart of the Annual Review Process
Work required and submission date notified to PGR Student by Academic Registry
Application Insufficient: Final Review meeting required
After submission documents are sent to the panel, First Supervisor organises Final Review meeting date, time &
venue
Flowchart of the Annual Review Process
Final Review meeting decisions
(confirmed in writing)
Confirm Registration
Further Supporting Evidence is necessary
Change PhD to MPhil
Discontinue registration
Thank you for listening
Any questions?