1. Progress Review

2. When and where?
Week beginning Monday 29th April (or shortly thereafter).
Submission deadline: Thursday 18th April.
2 hard copies of draft introduction, or equivalent, to Elsie, plus electronic copy to
self-assessment form via MMS.
The interview will take place in the office of one of the two reviewers – they will be in touch closer to the time.

3. Purpose The annual progress review should:
be a useful feedback exercise,
give you formal practice in talking about your work to an interested audience that is likely to include a non-specialist,
promote the timely and successful completion of postgraduate research degrees,
identify problems early, and help resolve problems where possible,
identify situations where a student is unlikely to be successful in their current degree track, and lead to an appropriate resolution, whether that is re-registration, withdrawal, or termination of studies,
serve as an opportunity for the student or supervisor to raise any concerns, and as a checkpoint to ensure that school and supervisory provisions are satisfactory.

4. Preparation You are required to submit:
EITHER a 12,000-15,000 word draft introduction to your thesis, including a literature review, discussions of any methodological or conceptual aspects of your work, and an overview of anticipated source-material,
OR a 6,000-7,500 word piece taking the form of a) a literature review, b) a draft chapter, or c) another suitable genre of text approved by the supervisor, PLUS a 6,000-7,500 word outline of the research question, the methodology, and the anticipated source-material,
PLUS a self-assessment form.

5. Preparation Student Self-Assessment Form
 ‘This form is a crucial part of your annual progress review and must be submitted alongside any other material requested by your School (e.g. draft introduction, or sample chapter). It will be used by your reviewers to inform your progress review interview, and may be seen by your supervisor. If you wish to raise concerns that you do not feel comfortable with your supervisor seeing, you should share them with the DoPG in the first instance. You should also, however, feel free to approach the Registry Student Support Officer, or the PGR Pro Dean.’

6. Preparation (1) Working thesis title.
(2) Please give a brief description of your project
(3) How often are you in contact with your supervisor? What forms does this contact take? Do the supervisory arrangements seem satisfactory to you?
(4) Have you discussed any ethical or risk assessment issues related to your project with your supervisor, and taken appropriate steps where necessary (e.g. submitting UTREC forms)?
(5) In addition to your research, what other academic work have you been involved in over the past year (e.g. teaching, research seminars, conference attendance, publications, grant proposals)?

7. Preparation
(6) What is your current state of completion? Please indicate how much of the thesis you have already completed and submitted to your supervisor(s), and provide a detailed completion plan (c words).
(7) Please indicate any problems which have arisen in connection with your project. Have you discussed them with your supervisory team?
(8) Is there any support (academic or pastoral) currently not provided that you think would help you to complete your project in a timely manner?
(9) Do you think your progress to date is satisfactory, and that you are on track to complete your thesis within the expected timeframe (3-4 years FTE)? Please be candid. If you wish you may choose to reflect upon and assess yourself against the 4-tier assessment criteria that will be used by your reviewers.

8. Interview
The interview will last for about 30 minutes. It will not follow a set pattern but is likely to include the following elements: 
You may be asked to summarise and explain, for an interested non-specialist, the subject of your dissertation (including the central research question), its importance to the field, its methodology and its primary source base.
You will be given the opportunity to comment on the resources provided by the University and raise any issues affecting your studies.

9. Assessment Reviewers’ report
‘This form will be shared with the student and supervisory team as feedback following the completion of the progress review process, and will also be available to reviewer teams in subsequent years.’
Please comment on the nature and quality of the written submissions.
Does the submission indicate that the student has made good progress during their first year of studies and can realistically complete their degree within the allocated period of study?

10. Assessment
(1) How frequently is the student in contact with their supervisory team?
(2) Does the form and extent of supervision seem sufficient to the student's needs?
(3) Does this project require ethical approval or a risk assessment?
(4) Does the student's progress over the past year, and their completion plan, make completion within the allocated period of study seem realistic? Please provide details of their progress and any concerns.
(5) Have the student and supervisory team considered the student's training and career development needs, and are these being met? Are there any concerns regarding the balance being struck between research and non-research commitments? 

11. Assessment
(6) Has the student mentioned any problems affecting their studies? If yes, please provide details.
(7) How do you classify the student's progress according to the 4-tier assessment criteria? Please elaborate on the reasons for your classification.
Green (satisfactory)
Yellow (minor concerns)
Amber (major concerns)
Red (unsatisfactory)