Responsesassignment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The two month report is a short summary to outline the project plan and aims and objectives of the research. The report also highlights required resources and has a one page diagrammatic work plan (eg a Gantt chart). The report and plan are considered by the SPPC and feedback is given to the student. A fuller Interim Report is required at the 8 month stage and this forms the basis of confirmation of registration at the end of year one. This report is 6 pages long, and should contain a summary of the project and its objectives, programme management plan and methodology. The reports are reviewed by the second supervisor and a nominated reviewer. The review team may also interview the student. The SPPC receives the report and reviewers’ comments. The decision to confirm registration is made by the SPPC. (2.4 & 2.5) An annual conference is held and all students attend. At the conference, second year students are required to present a poster and third year students are required to submit a thesis plan at month 27. This plan should contain a clear statement of the thesis, a few sentences of proposed content for each chapter, a timetable for completion and progress to date. Third year students can also opt to give a short oral presentation on their work at the conference. Although the monitoring scheme is routinely followed and targeted training opportunities are scheduled in to support the students, there was a general feeling amongst students and supervisors that the system was not as supportive in practice as it could be. In particular, concern was raised by the students with respect to the quality of the feedback and the timing of the second year poster, which could fall anywhere in the student’s second year depending on which month they started their PhD and the month in which the annual conference fell. The students found the two first year reports helpful, but they felt that more focussed monitoring requirements in the later years would help them to keep focused and identify problems sooner. There were no training courses or events for viva presentation. Students who had been able to present at an external conference where able to use this experience but this was not always the case for all students. Concerns expressed by academic staff mainly focused on the robustness and timings of the reports and the processes involved. It was felt that the 8 month report should be more exacting to stretch the students and assist in identifying students with poorer performance. The criteria for assessment of progress and decision making were not clear, and there was a risk that the recommendations across Institutes were not consistent. It was felt that the current system could allow underperforming students to progress, which is not good in the long term for either the student or the School. Concern was also expressed about the lack of opportunity for the principal supervisor to make comment on a student’s performance during the review process. Although the need for an ‘independent person’ in the process was recognized as critical, it was felt that the system could be unintentionally ignoring a valuable source of input to the decision making. (2.5) 20
The Panel recommended that the School look to developing a compromise to facilitate principal supervisor input while protecting objectivity. This could be achieved by introducing a ‘thesis committee’ for each student. This committee would follow the student throughout their study at the School and would be responsible for the review of all required work and submitting recommendations to the SPPC. The committee would be required to seek the views of the principal supervisor before making its recommendations. The thesis committee would also provide feedback to the student and could act as pastoral support for the student if problems arose with the project or the supervision. The Panel was also concerned that the 6 page report is not robust or challenging enough to be used as the sole assessment for continuation. The Panel did not see the value in requiring very large submissions but did see value in making the report more comprehensive with a higher requirement for explanation, reflective and constructive analysis and critical review from the students. The Panel expressed concerns regarding the lack of formal opportunities for the students to develop writing skills to support them during thesis writing. The 8 month report is not an in-depth report and there appeared to be no formal opportunity for a student to submit any piece of substantial written material between the 8 month report and the commencement of the writing up period. The School and IAD provided a Writing a Scientific Paper workshop at month 17, and a Thesis Workshop at month 26, but these courses are not mandatory. It was felt that at least the Thesis Writing Workshop should be mandatory and that additional opportunities for writing and critical reflective review should be put in place to assist students with their write up. These opportunities should be available in both year 2 and year 3. The Panel noted that the emphasis on 27 th month milestone had become diluted over the years of operation. The Panel considered that it would be constructive to re-emphasis the importance of this plan as a means of evaluating the progress of writing up, identifying any problems and to define a final work plan for completion. Strengthening this step would help to prevent ‘drift’ in finishing the project and improve completion rates. The Panel was supportive of the poster presentation and considered that more writing skills training must be additional to the poster session and not in place off of the poster. The Panel however heard varying reports about the effectiveness of the ‘review’ mechanism and the feedback mechanism at the poster presentations. The Panel recommends that the following adaptations are considered to increase the effectiveness of the process: • Upgrading the requirements of the 8 month review to make the report more comprehensive with a higher requirement for explanation, reflective and constructive analysis and critical review from the students. 21
Page 1 and 2: QAC: 25.10.12 H/02/28/02 The Univer
Page 3 and 4: elevant, and not discussed further
Page 5 and 6: to the Employability Strategy Group
Page 7 and 8: Action: The convener to discuss fur
Page 9 and 10: Action: Committee Secretary to invi
Page 11 and 12: our current policies and procedures
Page 13 and 14: QAC: 25.10.12 H/02/28/02 QAC 12/13
Page 15 and 16: Exam Board minutes; External examin
Page 17 and 18: Course Evaluations are needed for t
Page 21 and 22: The International Office ensure goo
Page 23 and 24: Task Group supersedes an earlier ac
Page 25 and 26: College of Science and Engineering
Page 27 and 28: Introduction: Review structure and
Page 29 and 30: 1. Management of the student learni
Page 31 and 32: The panel detected a certain level
Page 33 and 34: The Panel noted that the UK PhD res
Page 35 and 36: The Panel also recommends that furt
Page 37 and 38: The School also has a good record i
Page 39 and 40: for Women in Science). It was ackno
Page 41 and 42: 2. Management of quality and standa
Page 43: employment over a career in academi
Page 47 and 48: 3. Management of enhancement and sh
Page 49 and 50: Recommendations The panel makes the
Page 51 and 52: A more formal review procedure shou
Page 53 and 54: Appendix 2 Additional information c
Page 55 and 56: 1.1 The review area’s approach to
Page 57 and 58: Taught provision: including develop
Page 59 and 60: Taught provision: including learnin
Page 61 and 62: The University of Edinburgh Senate
Page 63 and 64: practice or discipline reference po
Page 65 and 66: Widening Participation programmes,
Page 67 and 68: http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/Acade
Page 71 and 72: QAC: 25.10.12 H/02/28/02 QAC 12/13
Page 73 and 74: APPENDIX 1 Number of Students Subje
Page 75 and 76: QAC: 25.10.12 H/02/28/02 QAC 12/13
Page 77 and 78: The Code of Practice for Supervisor
Page 79 and 80: 11 Higher education providers ensur
Page 81 and 82: The University of Edinburgh: Guidel
Page 85 and 86: Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
Page 89 and 90: If you intend to give full answers
Page 91 and 92: The above sentence could be disprop
Page 93 and 94: Indicators of sound practice: Strat
Page 95 and 96:
18. Do you have any suggestions for
Page 97 and 98:
24. Do you have any suggestions for
Page 99 and 100:
QAC: 25.10.12 H/02/28/02 QAC 12/13
Page 101 and 102:
Date of meeting Business Author Com
Page 103:
12.10.12
show all

Responsesassignment

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?