Guidance for Independent Assessors of thePostgraduate Research Student Annual Progress Review.

Process

Before meeting the student.

Briefly liaise with your co-assessor, regarding:o arrangements for the Annual Progress Reviewo the 2000 word/chapter for 3rd APR (6th APR part time) of the PGR’s work that you are

jointly choosing to read. Read the student’s Annual Progress Review report and the student’s work that you have

selected. Review with the eye of a doctoral examiner, whilst bearing in mind the stage of the doctorate and type of doctorate that the PGR is engaged in. Identify areas for discussion during your meeting with the PGR.

Ensure that all questions are fully covered in the report. It is important that the PGR:o provides a Personal Development Plan (PDP) indicating the researcher development

that has been undertaken, as well as indicating the development that they intend to complete during the next year.

o has met the word counts for their stage of the doctorate and have indicated where they have made progress against the completion of their thesis (draft chapters/ notes etc against the proposed thesis outline).

o has made a statement to whether they have ethical clearance and that the research has been reviewed to ensure that no further changes to ethical clearance is are required.

On the day of the Annual Progress Review, meet with the other assessor before you meet with the student. Agree the areas where you would like to ask questions about the report and part of the thesis that you have read.

During the meeting:

Listen and appraise the student’s presentation for clarity of message, understanding of topic and progress made.

Discuss the progress the PGR has made towards the completion of the draft/completed thesis, their development as a researcher including a discussion about the development aims outlined in the PDP. If the PDP is weak1, explore why this is the case.

Address the areas for further discussion that you have identified. If necessary discuss any areas of further development that you feel would benefit the PGR. Discuss the PGR’s supervisory arrangements and offer the PGR with the opportunity to

discuss issues that they would like to raise. It is important to verify that regular supervision

1 A weak PDP would be one that is has little activity outlined and/or little reflection on the learning gained through engaging in activities and/or no forward plan to the coming year (where appropriate).

is taking place and that the PGR knows who to approach if there is a breakdown in communication.

After the meeting:

Discuss both the quality of the student’s work (assessed from your reading and the student’s presentation) and the progress made. Progress made should include:

o 1) progress from previous APR, o 2) work towards a draft/completed thesis o 3) progress in their holistic development as a researcher (PDP).

Agree an outcome o Passo Pass with modificationso Proceed with Caution (previously ‘At Risk’)o Complete as MPhil (APR 1 and 2 full time; APR 1, 2, 3 and 4 part time)

Complete the Independent Assessors Report, sign the report and return it to the Faculty Research Administrators.

Professionalism APR is a constructive process. Feedback should be developmental, supportive and provide

the PGR with ways and ideas to improve themselves. As an Independent Assessor (IA) you are limited to making commentary about the quality of

the student's work and their progress; this does not include any judgement of a supervisory approach that is not agreed with.

IAs should avoid giving supervisory style advice during APR and refer the student back to their supervisors.

In the spirit of accepting that academics thrive on differences in approach and theoretical standpoints, where differences of opinion arise with regards theory, methodology, or analysis, this should be viewed as a matter for discussion, not correction. As part of APR we are preparing students in the defence of their work.

IAs should take consideration and care in their communication with the student such that they do not disrupt trust with their supervisory team.

IAs should be aware of the programme of study (Prof Doc vs PhD) and align expectations to this.

Sept, 2018

Form One : ASSESSORS FORM

Family Name of Student: ……………………………………………………………………………………….

Given Name(s) of Student: ……………………………………………………………………………………

Student Number: ………………………………

Supervisors: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Mode of study : full time, part time, distance learning: …………………………………

Is this a repeat Interim Assessment? : Yes/No

Title of Thesis:

Date of Assessment:

Level2 of ethical approval required? Cat 0; Cat A; Cat B (Please circle as appropriate)

Has ethical approval been obtained Yes/No

2 Cat 0 – Routine project work. No ethical approval required. Cat A - Routine project work involving human/non-human subjects/tissue where ethical issues have been considered and appropriately addressed. Cat B - Project where there is a significant ethical dimension. See http://www.wlv.ac.uk/research/about-our-research/policies-and-ethics/ethics-guidance/ethical-categories/

If approval is required the approval confirmation letter must be submitted alongside the report. If No, please explain the reason for this.

PLEASE COMMENT ON THE RESEARCH TRAINING PLAN THAT THE CANDIDATE HAS SUBMITTED AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, THEIR COMMENTARY OF TRAINING AGAINST THEIR PREVIOUS PLAN.

IN ADDITION, PLEASE COMMENT ON ANY TRAINING OR DEVELOPMENT YOU FEEL THAT THE PGRS WOULD BENEFIT FROM (completion of this section is compulsory)

COMMENTS ON ORAL PERFORMANCE (PRESENTATION OR VIVA):

COMMENTS ON SUBMITTED WORK:

Comments on the quality of the student’s academic writing

Would this student benefit from a referral the International Academy for support with their academic English: Yes/ No

Would this student benefit from a referral the Learning and Information Skills Team for support with their academic writing: Yes/ No

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS

‘Good’ candidate to proceed to next stage of work, in the sections above give

feedback that could help to improve the candidate’s work.

‘Satisfactory’ candidate can proceed, but in the sections above give details of issues the candidate must address in the next stage of work.

‘Not Adequate’ candidate cannot proceed, in the sections above give details why the candidate cannot proceed, and issues that the candidate must address if a re-submission is allowed.

This would form the basis for a ‘Proceed with Caution’ recommendation

Please complete as appropriate.

Evidence of:Good Satisfacto

ryNot

Adequate

NotApplicab

leClarity of research focus

Completion of literature review

Brief review and discussion of the work already undertaken

Presentation of the data/findings to date

General knowledge of particular field of learning

Details of original contribution to knowledge likely to emerge

Statement of intended further work

Progress of this work so far

For Progression Stage only

Evidence of: Good Adequate Not Adequate

Original research/advanced scholarship

Acquisition/understanding of a substantial body of knowledge

Creation and interpretation of new knowledge

Ability to make informed judgements on complex issues

Ability to adjust research in light of unforeseen problems

Personal responsibility/autonomous initiative

COMMENTS FROM THE STUDENT REGARDING THEIR SUPERVISIONFor example: Has the student regularly met with their supervisor (FT 10 times per year; PT 6 times per year); is the student happy with the quality of their supervision?

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS

Recommendation to the Faculty Research Committee: (Please tick the appropriate box)

That the candidature continue as a Doctoral Candidate (PhD or Professional Doctorate)

That the candidate continue as a Doctoral Candidate (PhD or Professional Doctorate subject to making minor modifications that once complete are reviewed and approved by the DOS

That the candidature be transferred to the degree Masters of Philosophy

That the candidate Proceed with Caution and their Assessment be repeated within 3 months.

Please Note: the Interim Assessment can only be repeated once. A candidate who cannot proceed after re-submission will not be permitted a repeat assessment.

That the candidature be terminated

Assessment Panel Members:

Confirmation by the following members of the Annual Progress Review Panel:

Nominated Independent Assessors:

Name: …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Signature: ………………………………………………………. Date: ………………

Name: …………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Signature: ……………………………………………………….. Date: ………………

Please sign and date this document and return to your Faculty Research Administrator

Research Administration Team office use only

Date of receipt ……………………. Date approved by FRC ………………….

Date checked ……………………. Date sent to RASC …………………………..

Assessment to be repeated: Y/N Date of Repeat Assessment3……………………….

(If Y = Was the repeat Assessment successful Y/N

Research Administration Team office use only

Can the PGRS progress to the next year of study Y/N

Copy sent to the Loans Company Y/N

3 This date will be the date of Annual Progress Review + 70 day (assessment and paperwork to be completed by +90 day at the maximum,

Appendix Two – Students forms.

Student Progress Report

ANNUAL PROGRESS REVIEW Sept 2018

SECTION A - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CANDIDATE

Title (Mr / Mrs / Miss / Ms etc) Faculty

Family Name First / Given Name(s)

Title of Thesis:

Mode of Registration: Full-time Part-time

The Degree that you have registered for

M.Phil PhD Professional Doctorate

Date of initial registration:

(If unsure please contact STaR Office)

Have you take Leave of Absence or an Extension

Yes No

Please give details

Instructions to students:

Complete section A in full. We advise that you complete this form electronically – all boxes are expandable.

This form should not exceed 1000 words in total.

A1. Reflection on previous action planning

To what extent you achieved the goals set in action planning for the year under review?

Comments on the extent to which you have achieved the goals set in personal development plan for the year under review (Please submit your personal development plan as part of your evidence)

Please provide a commentary on what you have learned through your commitment to skills development.

A2. Summary of progress made with your research degree programme

(i) Data gathering and primary research

(ii) Your progress against your thesis plan/structure (Please submit your thesis plan/structure as part of your evidence)

(iii) Other research achievements, including presentations and/or publications

(iv) Please provide a commentary on the impact of your research and how this impact is demonstrated to both specific and non-specific audiences (e.g. publications, conferences, presentation, public engagement and outreach activities).

A3. Comments or observations you would wish to draw to the attention of the Faculty Research Committee.

A4. Indicative programme of work for the coming year.

(i) Your research work plan

(ii) Your thesis development plan

(iii) Your skills development plan

A5 Has the programme of research changed significantly since the last ethical approval? Have these changes been confirmed?

A6. Anticipated thesis submission date.

A7. Please give your current address and a daytime telephone number where you can be contacted to discuss this report.

A8. Evidence list

Please list here the evidence required for progression as approved by your Faculty Research Committee. This may include draft chapters, posters, oral presentations, other research outputs, and students’ skills development records and the submission of all the written work required for this stage.

C1. Director of Studies: (Please tick )

YES No

Have you reviewed this APR Report?

Do you agree with the PGR’s account of their progress?

C1. Decision of Faculty Research Committee: (Please tick )

That the candidature continue as a Doctoral Candidate (PhD or Professional Doctorate)

That the candidate continue as a Doctoral Candidate (PhD or Professional Doctorate subject to making minor modifications that once complete are reviewed and approved by the DOS

That the candidature be transferred to the degree Masters of Philosophy

That the candidate should Proceed with Caution and their Assessment be repeated within 3 months.

Please Note: the Interim Assessment can only be repeated once. A candidate who cannot proceed after re-submission will not be permitted a repeat assessment.

That the candidature be terminated

In the case of Bursaried Students commencing their fourth year of study only: (Please tick ) I confirm that the bursary contract will terminate and the student has applied for ‘Write Up’

Chairs comments:

Have the resource requirements for the programme changed since the submission of the RESPROP and if so how? Please provide details of additional resources.

Concerns/issues for the attention of the Director of Studies or RASC:

Signature of the Chair of FRC or Faculty PGR Tutor Date