Progression and Assessment¶

Each year, there are a set of activities you have to go through to demonstrate that you are making good progress in your research, and have a good plan to complete on time.

There is a less formal review, called the Research Progress Review where your supervisory team and an independent assessor will evaluate your work, and give you feedback and suggestions. They may also give you remedial actions, which you will have to complete before the end of your current year. You may be required to produce a larger piece of work, such as the long report during the first year. This would be assessed by your supervisor and an independent assessor.

At the end of years 1 and 2 you have a formal end of year examination in front of a panel consisting of two independent assessors. This end of year assessment will take into account the outcome of the research progress review and updates on your performance from your supervisor(s), the report from the second reader, as well as your performance during the end of year exam. Evidence concerning your level of engagement, such as failure to participate in the required modules, could also be taken into account.

The possible outcomes from the end of year examinations are: proceed into the next year, withdraw from the programme, but with the possibility of submitting for a lesser degree, typically MPhil, or withdraw.

If by the end of year 3 you are not ready to submit your thesis, you may request a change of registration to ‘submission pending’. This is to allow extra time to prepare the thesis up to one year.

Danger

The submission of the thesis must take place within 4 years of the start of registration of the PhD.

Progression Overview¶

Each research student will go through yearly examinations in order to demonstrate that they are making satisfactory progress towards production of novel research results leading to a Doctorate. In each of these years, the student will produce a Summary report which is a short report summarising the research and whatever progress has been made, and a plan for the subsequent year(s).

At month 9 of year 1 the students will go through an interview called a Research Progress Review with their supervisor and an independent assessor. The purpose of this interview is to provide an initial assessment of the student’s progress, and provide feedback, and if necessary, assigned remedial actions or achievement milestones to help get a faltering student back on track.

At the end of years 1 and 2 there is a so-called End-of-Year (EoY) interview. This should be viewed as an exam, because it makes the formal decision whether the student progresses into the next year. Possible outcomes are: progress into the next year or do not progress. In the case of non-progression, the possibility of submission for a lesser degree may be offered, typically and MPhil.

Warning

This describes the procedure for full-time PhD students. The procedure for part-time PhD students is described in the ‘Part-Time’ Chapter.

1st Year¶

The student will present the work to an End of Year Examination Panel. They will make the ultimate determination whether the student can progress to the next year, has to withdraw, or has to withdraw but can register for MPhil, using evidence provided by the student’s performance, the supervisor, the independent assessor, and other information available on eProg.

1st year ‘Research Progress Review’:¶

[Month 8] Research Progress Report (sometimes called the ‘Short Report’ or ‘Summary Report’)
1. (prompted by eProg), the supervisor informally recruits the Independent Assessor, who should be a domain expert or in a closely related domain to the student. And is selected by the supervisor in consultation with the student. This assessor will also examine the student’s ‘additional work’ if needed.
2. The Student submits Research Progress Report (via eProg) comprising a research proposal, a brief summary of the research so far, and a research plan, and also emails to both the Independent Assessor and the Supervisory Team.
3. This report should be 1500 words excluding references – 500 words to include the social / technical / research impact explicitly (along with the student’s ORCID). The supervisory team and the assessor will check the format and length and can return this to the student unread if it does not meet specification.

Note

Research Progress Report:

The Research Progress (Summary or short) Report is primarily a research proposal. It needs to make clear: what is the research problem, why it is important or interesting to address it, what is the approach the student intends explore to try to address it, and how success or failure is going to be evaluated. It should also contain a brief summary of progress so far and a plan for how the research is going to be carried out. Sept starters will taking the the scientific writing course (Scientific Methods III, COMP80142) prior to this, and may wish to use this report as assigned writing piece they will need to produce. The report should be 1500 words excluding references (along with the student’s ORCID). *Ultimately, it will need to readable by the end of year examiners, who will not necessarily be experts in your branch of computer science. Thus, it needs to be readable by an well-educated, general computer science audience*

In addition to the summary, the report should include:

Impact of the Research be that social / technical / research impact (500 words to include the explicitly)
a research plan for the next year, concerning how the research should be carried out,
A plan as to how this will lead to a thesis (e.g. proposed structure of a thesis at the level of chapter and section headings),
a list of publications, published or submitted,
a plan for other activities, including any visits, internships, targeted conferences or journal publications, and public engagement activities.

[Month 9] Research Progress Review:
1. This is organised by the supervisor and could take place in the supervisor’s office or a small meeting room. The review times and locations are set between the interested parties (the independent assessor will inform SSO of the time/date/location). The review gauges the fitness of a student for continued PhD study and assesses progress to date.
2. This event will last about one hour with 15-20 min presentation given by the student, followed by questions and discussions led by the independent assessor. This presentation is pitched to the independent assessor, who, it is assumed, will not know the motivation of the research. This should be viewed as a research talk, and the discussion can be technical in nature. The outcome is documented via eProg and can be 2-fold:
3. Progress is as expected, student is on good path towards PhD: no further action required.
4. Progress is unsatisfactory/questionable: the student will have to submit additional work (via eProg), which is assessed by the independent assessor. This work is by default the Long Report, however, the independent assessor can assign remedial action (any reasonable additional work if it is explicitly documented), such as writing a paper, performing a critical review, etc. The remedial action being stored in the student’s eProg document store, and emailed to the supervisory team and internal assessor 1 month before the progression interview. This is reevaluated by the independent assessor for Progression (Research Progress Update eProg-COMPM2000). This assessment report being available one week preceding the progression interview and sent to SSO (who will pursue reports not returned) for onward distribution to the Progression Examiner.

Note

The Long Research Report is a substantial document at the level of an MPhil thesis or a journal paper with no page limit and ample space for literature review and technical details. The latter is particularly appropriate if an alternative format thesis is planned. A typical length would be around 15,000 – 20,000 words.

End of Year Examination:¶

[Month 11] End-of-year interview
The Short Report (eProg-COMPM1998) - uploaded via eProg, with 15 min presentation, followed by 30 min Q&A – with 1 (or 2) examiners, student, supervisor(s). Organised by the supervisor/examiner, reported in eProg. The Short Report is repurposed from the Research Progress Report with small changes made based on the experiences of the RPR.
1. If additional work has been requested by the Independent Assessor, then two examiners are required;
2. If no additional work has been requested by the Independent Assessor, then one examiner is required;
3. If the the examiner is new to the duty, then two examiners are required;
4. Examiners are randomly allocated to a student (and their supervisory team), by Student Support. In this case, it should be assumed that the examiner is not an expert in the particular research field, and the technical level should be pitched accordingly.
5. The Supervisor and Examiner arrange a time/date/location between themselves and at a minimum the examiner and supervisor are present (optimally the supervisory team is present) to conduct the examination (the Examiner will inform SSO of the time/date/location). SSO will issue prompts if arrangements have not been made, and the student will not progress or be able to register without this interview.
6. The student will give a 15 minute oral presentation describing the goals of the research, why the research is important, a summary of work complete, work underway, and future direction. This will be followed with questioning by the examiner and supervisory team and include technical question by the supervisory team. The interview is not intended to be a rubber stamp but an in depth presentation, Q&A, and discussion which both assesses the student’s progress and gauges the student’s ability to complete, while also providing the student with a learning experience of answering detailed questions in examination conditions. It should be assumed that the examiner(s) are not experts in the particular research field, and the technical level should be pitched accordingly.
7. The student will leave and the examiner and supervisor, informed by the supervisor and independent assessor reports, will reach a conclusion. If any remedial action was given at the Research Progress Review, the supervisor will inform the panel whether it was satisfactorily completed (and the work stored in eProg may be accessed - Research Progress Update eProg-COMPM2000). The goal of this examination is to ascertain whether the student has made sufficient progress and is on track to succeed at producing a doctorate in time.
8. If they are satisfactory, the student progresses to the 2nd year. If not, the student may be offered the opportunity to complete an MPhil, otherwise if progress is not sufficient for an MPhil then the student is not able to progress. There is no ‘conditional progression’ subject to remedial action at this stage.

2nd Year¶

The student will present the work to an End of Year Examination Panel comprising the supervisory team. They will make the ultimate determination whether the student can progress to the next year, has to withdraw, or has to withdraw but can register for MPhil, using evidence provided by the student’s performance, the supervisor, the independent assessor, and other information available on eProg.

2nd year ‘Progression’:¶

[Month 23] All students submit a short report only.
via eProg, and repurposing that created in year 1 with updates and changes clearly identified.
1. Examined via a 20 minute interview by the supervisory team. A decision is generated and recorded in eProg.
2. If progress is as expected, student is on good path towards a Doctorate: no further action required. If not, the student may be offered the opportunity to complete an MPhil, otherwise if progress is not sufficient for an MPhil then the student is not able to progress. There is no ‘conditional progression’ subject to remedial action at this stage.

3rd Year¶

Many students are aiming to finish by the end of year 3 (typically your funding will have run out). In this case, you need to submit a form indicating your intention to submit and nominating your examiners (via eProg). Your main supervisor will select the examiners in consultation with you. See the ‘Submission’ section for more details.

However, some students may not have completed after 3 years because their programme is longer than this, or because they are delayed for some reason. If you are delayed then you should transfer to “Submission Pending”, which is a writing up period.

In order to do this, you need to submit a End of 3rd Year report form, along with a plan for achieving what is necessary within 12 months. This form will need to be signed by the main supervisor and the PGR Director, via eProg.

3rd year ‘Progression’¶

[Month 35] All students who have not completed an eProg ‘Notice to Submit’ must submit a Completion Plan, comprising a brief report describing what they have completed, what they have yet to do, and outline a detailed plan for completion (via eProg) and discuss this with the supervisory team (recorded via eProg).
1. At the request of the Supervisor or the PGR Director the student will also have a 1 to 1 interview with the PGR Director(or their nominated representative).
2. For students wishing to transfer to Submission Pending. If the Completion Plan is approved the student can move to submission pending. If the Plan is not approved the student must submit what there is for examination.
3. For all other students. If progress is as expected, student is on good path towards a Doctorate: no further action required. If not, the student may be offered the opportunity to complete an MPhil, otherwise if progress is not sufficient for an MPhil then the student is not able to progress. There is no ‘conditional progression’ subject to remedial action at this stage.
[Month 42] All students
who have not yet completed a ‘Notice to Submit’
1. Must outline a detailed plan for completion (via eProg) and have a 1 to 1 interview with the Director of PGR also recorded via eProg.

Submission¶

[Month 48] The student will submit.

The only exception is for an interrupt period or Programme Extension.

.