phd annual progress report example

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

How to Present PhD Progress Report to Doctoral Committee Members in 03 Simple Stages

As I reflect on my journey through the challenges and triumphs of presenting my PhD progress to the doctoral committee, I’m reminded of the invaluable lessons learned and the transformative experiences gained along the way.

1. Diverse Committee Composition: From the outset, the composition of the doctoral committee struck me with its diversity—comprising experts from within and outside my university, each member brought a unique perspective and wealth of knowledge to the table. Their ability to seamlessly map my research problem to their respective domains underscored the richness of their insights and the importance of their feedback in shaping the trajectory of my study.

2. Thorough Preparation: Meticulously crafting my presentation was only the first step. I realized the necessity of thorough preparation, ensuring that each slide effectively communicated my research objectives, methodology, preliminary findings, and future directions. Despite the initial nerves, I remained composed and focused, drawing upon months of dedication and hard work invested in my research.

3. Anticipating Diverse Requests: During one particularly memorable meeting, the committee members had varied requests—one member asked for a demonstration of my work, while another member wanted to delve into the intricacies of my data collection, cleaning, and wrangling process. These diverse requests underscored the importance of being prepared for any eventuality during the presentation, including the need for live demonstrations and detailed explanations of data-related processes.

4. Embracing Constructive Criticism: I welcomed the committee’s feedback with an open mind. Their constructive criticism and encouragement not only bolstered my confidence but also reignited my passion for my work. I learned to recognize the invaluable role of feedback in guiding the next steps of my research journey.

5. Displaying Previous Meeting Observations: One valuable lesson I learned along the way was the importance of displaying and addressing previous committee meeting observations in subsequent presentations. It was during my second presentation that one committee member suggested this approach, highlighting the need to showcase how suggestions were addressed and incorporated into the research progress. From that point onward, I made it a regular practice to include this information in my presentations, ensuring transparency and accountability in my research journey.

In retrospect, each PhD progress presentation was a transformative experience, shaping me into a more resilient, prepared, and adaptable researcher.

As I reflect on the journey of presenting my PhD progress, I invite you to join me in exploring the intricacies of navigating these pivotal meetings. From preparation to presentation, and from feedback to refinement, each step of the journey offers valuable insights into the art and science of doctoral progress presentations.

Introduction

Summary of plan of actions before phd progress presentation meeting, presentation tips, summary of plan of actions during phd progress presentation meeting, summary of plan of actions after phd progress presentation meeting, email template to doctoral committee members for extension or modification for the work proposed, mastering the art of oral and visual presentations for phd presentations, what should be included in the one-page summary for phd doctoral committee members, how can i effectively demonstrate a software-based project during the phd progress presentation, what level of detail should i include in the background section of my presentation, how can i ensure that there are no surprises for my supervisor during the doctoral committee meeting, what types of questions can i expect from the committee members regarding my research plan, how should i respond to suggestions and feedback given by the committee members during the meeting, under which circumstances phd progress presentation can be rejected.

The PhD Doctoral committee is constituted by the university in which the candidate has registered for PhD. The committe is there   to support and guide the research scholar  till his final thesis is submitted. The committe involves the experts in the domain of the candidate from various universities and research labs. The Committee will evaluate your progress and help to make sure that you are on track to get your dissertation within a reasonable time.

At the beginning of your research, their focus will be on making sure you have defined reasonable and achievable objectives. Later, they will help you decide when it is time to write your thesis. Finally, they will be there at your thesis seminar and defence presentations. Their support as mentors will likely continue as you move on in your career.

Doctoral committee meeting happens usually once in 06 months. Here it is expected that the research scholar has to present his  PhD progress work of the past six months. The meeting should not be felt like an exam. The outcome should be productive advice to you for your future research.

The  Presentation of  PhD Progress Report to Doctoral Committee Members happens in three stages namely: i) Before the meeting:   i.e. Once you start preparing the report for the meeting to till the meeting begins. ii) During the meeting:  i.e. From entering into the meeting hall to  till the meeting gets over and iii) After the meeting:   i.e. From the time meeting concludes to till the next six months before you really start preparing for your next meeting report.

Before the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

Along with your supervisor go through all the comments given in the previous PhD progress doctoral committee meeting. Discuss in detail with your supervisor the work carried out for the past six months. If any issues are still pending have justification for not addressing or partially addressing those issues.

Do not hide details regarding the implementation and pending issues with your supervisor.  This actually helps the supervisor to defend you and take inputs from the committee members regarding the future course of directions.

A summary of  PhD progress and plans should be prepared and submitted to the  Doctoral committee at least one week prior to the meeting. Make sure that you have gone through the report with all grammatical corrections and plagiarism checks.

Send out the agenda to your committee members beforehand, but also remind them of the topics you want to cover before you begin the presentation. If you have any manuscripts published or accepted send your committee a copy of the same.

You should prepare a  PhD progress presentation (no more than 20 minutes without interruption) that includes a brief background of your research, objectives and the work carried out from the last presentation to till date. Without fail discuss in detail the presentation slides with your supervisor. In your presentation slides list all the previous comments and your response for each committee in the form of a table.

If you are planning to change the title of your work getting consent from the committee members is essential. Have at least    04-05 titles which you and your supervisor feel appropriate beforehand. This will ease the process of changing the title immediately in the meeting and the committee can recommend the same to the university along with regular suggestions.

The best way to ensure that your  PhD progress meeting goes smoothly is to meet individually with each committee member to discuss your results well in advance. If you cannot meet with them in person, share your results ( refer my blog on how to write result section ) over email and ask for their feedback. If there are any disagreements, resolve them before the meeting by speaking with your supervisor to ensure that the meeting goes smoothly.

During the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

Before the start of the PhD progress presentation give copies of the one-page summary to other faculty members who are attending the session. Submit copies of the complete report to the committee members including your supervisor. No need to present details of any published work. Provide a reprint or preprint, preferably ahead of the meeting. If your work is software based then keep the demo ready. If you do not have a working module then show the video demonstration of the model. This will help the committee members to suggest future directions for your work.

During your PhD progress committee meeting, you should focus on the last six months’ work rather than the background. Only spend as much time on the background as is relevant to what you will be talking about.

There should not be any surprise slides/facts to your supervisor during your committee meeting.

At your first PhD progress Doctoral committee meeting, you will present an outline of your plan for your research. You can build a detailed description of what you plan to do ( literature survey to carry out,  algorithms or theorems to study,  experiments to carry out, software and hardware components to add, systems integration to perform, tests to accomplish ).  The plans can be represented with specific milestones and timelines with a  Gantt Chart .

Example: The sample Gantt chart below shows a set of activities planned for the next few months for the Research work. This can be extended to any length. This chart helps the committee members to know how well the researcher has planned the research activities.

At subsequent PhD progress meetings you should present a brief introduction (one or two slides) to remind the committee of your research area – don’t expect them to recall everything from the last meeting, but no need to go into great detail. Aim to put your work in context.

Show your current working objective in the form of a block diagram. This will set the boundary for the presentation and discussion. This will help the committee members to focus on the specified objective. For example in the figure below the candidate is focusing on the “Wheeled mobile Robot” objective in Robot Path Planning.

Make sure you are comfortable moving back and forth among your slides.  Do not cross the time limit. Add photographs of any field visits for data collection , or conference presentations in your presentation slides. If you had any interactions with domain experts in your area then add interaction details with a date. If you have visited any organization as a resource person relating to your Ph.D. work with your supervisor then add that details.

Seek advice from your committee members during the meeting. Note down all the suggestions by yourself or ask one of your research colleagues to note the same.  This is highly desirable, almost to the point that you should make it mandatory. Give a timeline of your plans. What will you be doing over the next month, and what do you hope to accomplish before your next meeting in the next six months’ time.

Keep additional slides along with your regular slides. Get into additional slides detail if any clarifications are sought on any equations or algorithms etc.

Additional slides can be presented as follows:

i) The equipment details you are planning to purchase or currently using for implementation.

ii) The Algorithms which you have implemented or planning to implement.

iii) The mathematical model you have developed,  or

iv) Any slides that you think are important but do not have time to cover at the end of your presentation.

Here are some tips regarding the presentation, including time management, devices, backup, laptop usage, uploading PowerPoint, video, and audio:

• Practice your presentation beforehand to ensure it fits within the allocated time.
• Use a timer or stopwatch during practice sessions to gauge your pace.
• Be mindful of the time during the actual presentation and make necessary adjustments to stay on track.
• Ensure your laptop or presentation device is in good working condition.
• Carry a backup copy of your presentation on a USB drive or cloud storage.
• Test the compatibility of your presentation files with the equipment at the presentation venue in advance.
• Close any unnecessary applications or notifications on your laptop to avoid distractions.
• Disable sleep mode or screensavers to prevent interruptions during the presentation.
• Familiarize yourself with the laptop’s function keys or shortcuts for adjusting display settings, volume, etc.
• Save your PowerPoint presentation in a compatible format (e.g., PPT or PPTX).
• Verify that all embedded media (images, videos, audio) are properly linked and functional.
• If possible, upload your presentation to the venue’s computer system before the session to avoid last-minute technical issues.
• Check the audio and video components of your presentation beforehand to ensure they work properly.
• If you plan to play a video, ensure it is in a compatible format and smoothly integrated into your presentation.
• Test the sound levels to ensure audibility for everyone in the room.

Additional tips (from personal experience):

• Rehearse your presentation multiple times to build confidence and familiarity with the material.
• Prepare cue cards or key points to refer to if needed, but avoid excessive reliance on them.
• Maintain eye contact with the audience to engage them and convey confidence.
• Speak clearly and project your voice to ensure everyone can hear you.
• Use visual aids and diagrams to enhance understanding and clarify complex concepts.
• Incorporate storytelling or real-life examples to make your presentation more engaging.
• Practice smooth transitions between slides and maintain a logical flow throughout.
• Be prepared to answer questions and engage in discussions following your presentation.

Remember, the more prepared and confident you are, the better you can deliver your presentation effectively.

After the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

End your  PhD progress committee meeting with a summary of what you have discussed, common points that you have reached and an action plan for the next six months. Your action plan needs to have “actionable” items, specifically what milestones you will work towards after the meeting and approximate timelines.

A written summary of the  PhD progress committee meeting will be prepared by the supervisor and the committee, and that will be sent to the University. You will receive a copy of this and a copy will be placed in your research file.

Send an email note to each of your committee members through your supervisor to thank them for their time, and summarize the action items or milestones you agreed to. This will give your committee members another chance to give you feedback or suggestions.

During the meeting, you might have accepted to complete some implementation before the next meeting, but you may run out of time or you may not get any ideas regarding implementation. In such situations, have a discussion with your supervisor and the committee members and discuss the challenges faced by you. They may either extend the implementation time or ask you to change the methodology of implementation.

Simply do not wait for suggestions from committee members till the next PhD progress presentation meeting. In order to build trust between you and your committee members, you need to take committee members and your supervisor into confidence before taking any major decisions.

In the meeting, the committee might have suggested publishing your work in a quality conference or journal for better citations. Selecting a reputable journal and avoiding predatory conferences and journals is crucial for maximizing the visibility and impact of your research article.

By publishing in a respected journal, you increase the likelihood of attracting a broader and more qualified readership, thus increasing the chances of your article being cited by other researchers. Choosing the right journal involves considering factors such as the journal’s scope, target audience, impact factor, indexing in reputable databases, peer-review process, and overall reputation in the field.

Additionally, it is important to stay vigilant and avoid predatory conferences and journals that may engage in unethical practices or lack rigorous peer-review processes. These predatory outlets may hinder the credibility and recognition of your work. By carefully selecting a reputable journal, you position your research for greater exposure, credibility, and citation potential.

Visit my articles on ” How to identify and avoid predatory conferences and journals ” and “ Identifying Reputable journals for your research paper “. These articles will help you in getting your articles cited by many authors.

Here is an email template which you can communicate to your doctoral committee members in case you fail to keep the deadline or are unable to work on the ideas you proposed. Please take consent from your supervisor before sending any communication to Doctoral Committee members.

Improving both oral presentation and visual presentation skills is crucial for effective communication. To enhance your oral presentation skills, focus on aspects such as clarity, organization, and delivery. Practice speaking clearly, using appropriate tone and volume, and engaging with your audience. Additionally, consider refining your body language, utilizing effective gestures, and maintaining eye contact. For further guidance and resources on honing your oral presentation skills, you may explore reputable platforms and online courses available in this domain.

When it comes to visual presentation skills, it is essential to create visually appealing and impactful slides or visuals. Pay attention to design elements, such as color schemes, fonts, and layout, to ensure coherence and readability. Utilize visuals, such as graphs, charts, and images, to convey information effectively. Incorporate appropriate animations or transitions to enhance the flow and engagement of your presentation. To access valuable tips, techniques, and tools for enhancing your visual presentation skills, you can explore recommended platforms and tutorials available online.

If you are interested in further developing your oral presentation skills, I recommend checking out this comprehensive course on oral presentation skills . It covers essential techniques, strategies, and practical exercises to help you deliver impactful presentations confidently. Likewise, if you want to enhance your visual presentation skills, you may find this resource on v isual presentation design highly beneficial. It provides valuable insights, best practices, and examples to create visually stunning and effective presentations. Feel free to explore these resources to elevate your presentation skills and captivate your audience.

Presenting your PhD progress report to the doctoral committee can be a daunting task, but it is an essential part of your PhD journey. The committee is there to provide guidance and support, ensuring that you are on track to complete your dissertation within a reasonable time. It is crucial to approach the committee meeting with a positive attitude and view it as an opportunity to receive productive advice for your future research.

Remember that the presentation of the progress report to the committee happens in three stages: before, during, and after the meeting. The preparation of the report should be meticulous and thoughtful, and during the meeting, you should be open to constructive feedback and suggestions. After the meeting, you should take note of the committee’s recommendations and use them to shape your future research endeavours.

As you move forward in your career, the support and guidance of the doctoral committee will likely continue to be a valuable resource. By effectively presenting your progress report to the committee, you can make the most of this opportunity and receive the guidance you need to succeed in your PhD program.

Frequently Asked Questions

Research Objective: Clearly state the objective of your research and the problem you are addressing. Methodology: Provide a brief description of the methodology or approach you are using to conduct your research. Key Findings: Highlight the major findings or results you have obtained so far in your research. Progress Update: Summarize the progress you have made during the past six months, highlighting significant achievements or milestones reached. Challenges: Briefly mention any challenges or obstacles you have encountered in your research and how you are addressing them. Future Plans: Outline your planned next steps and future goals for your research, including anticipated timelines or milestones. Relevance and Impact: Discuss the relevance and potential impact of your research in your field or discipline. Support Needed: Specify any specific support, resources, or expertise you require to further advance your research.

To effectively demonstrate a software-based project during the presentation: Have the demo prepared and functional Show a video demonstration if the software is not available or requires specific conditions Focus on showcasing key features and functionalities Provide context and explain the purpose of the software

Include only the necessary level of detail in the background section of your presentation, focusing on what is directly relevant to your research and the specific objectives you will be discussing. Keep it concise and provide enough context to help the doctoral committee members to understand the significance and motivation of your work without delving into unnecessary details.

Maintain open and regular communication with your supervisor throughout the research process. Share progress updates, challenges, and findings with your supervisor in a timely manner. Discuss any potential issues or deviations from the original plan as soon as they arise. Seek feedback and guidance from your supervisor at various stages of your research. Keep your supervisor informed about any changes in methodology, data, or results. Address any concerns or questions from your supervisor before the committee meeting to align expectations.

The types of questions you can expect from committee members regarding your research plan may include: Clarification questions seeking a deeper understanding of your research objectives, methodology, or proposed experiments. Questions about the theoretical framework or literature review supporting your research. Inquiries about the feasibility and potential limitations of your proposed research. Questions related to the significance and impact of your research in the field. Suggestions for alternative approaches or methodologies to consider. Questions about the expected timeline and milestones for your research. Inquiries about potential ethical considerations or data management strategies. Questions exploring the potential implications and practical applications of your research. Requests for additional details or explanations on specific aspects of your research plan. Questions about the expected contributions of your research to the existing body of knowledge in your field.

When responding to suggestions and feedback given by the committee members during the meeting: Listen actively and attentively to understand the suggestions and feedback. Thank the committee members for their input and valuable insights. Remain open-minded and receptive to different perspectives and ideas. Clarify any points of confusion or seek further clarification, if needed. Acknowledge the validity of the suggestions and show a willingness to consider them. Provide thoughtful responses that demonstrate your understanding of the suggestions. Clearly articulate your rationale if you choose not to implement a specific suggestion. Engage in constructive discussions and ask follow-up questions, if appropriate. Demonstrate your ability to integrate feedback into your research plan or adjust your approach. Express gratitude for the committee members’ support and guidance throughout the process.

Lack of Clear Objectives: If your progress presentation fails to clearly define and articulate the objectives of your research, it may be rejected. The committee expects a clear understanding of what you aim to achieve and the significance of your research goals. Inadequate Progress: Insufficient progress made during the specified period can lead to rejection. The committee expects tangible advancements in your research within the given timeframe. If there is a lack of substantial work or limited progress, they may question the feasibility or dedication to your research. Methodological Issues: If there are flaws in your research methodology or data collection techniques, the committee may reject your progress presentation. It is essential to demonstrate a robust and well-designed research approach that aligns with the requirements of your field. Poor Presentation Skills: Your presentation skills play a crucial role in conveying your research effectively. If your presentation lacks clarity, coherence, or fails to engage the audience, it may lead to rejection. Effective communication and the ability to present complex ideas in a concise and understandable manner are vital. Inadequate Literature Review: A comprehensive literature review is expected in a progress presentation. If your review of existing literature is incomplete, lacks depth, or fails to address relevant studies, your presentation may be rejected. It is essential to showcase a thorough understanding of the existing research and its relationship to your work. Failure to Address Committee Feedback: If you neglect to incorporate previous feedback and suggestions from the committee, it may result in rejection. The committee expects you to demonstrate the ability to reflect on and address their recommendations, showing your commitment to improving your research. Remember, the specific parameters for rejection may vary depending on your academic institution and the expectations set by your doctoral committee. It is crucial to consult your supervisor and committee members for clear guidelines and expectations for your progress presentation.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Posts

• Best 5 Journals for Quick Review and High Impact in August 2024
• 05 Quick Review, High Impact, Best Research Journals for Submissions for July 2024
• Top Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Research Paper
• Average Stipend for Research/Academic Internships
• These Institutes Offer Remote Research/Academic Internships
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

• Undergraduate
• Master’s
• Areas of Focus
• Centers + Institutes
• Labs + Facilities
• Featured Research
• Undergraduate Research
• Graduate Group
• Open Faculty Positions
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Outreach Mission
• Local Programs
• Global Programs
• Why Penn Bioengineering?
• Bioengineering Blog
• Penn Engineering Blog
• Seminars + Events
• Visiting BE
• Make a Gift
• Current Students
• Annual PhD Progress Report

Ph.D. Student Handbook

Annual ph.d. progress report.

Starting in their second year, students will meet with a mentoring committee annually. Prior to candidacy, the mentoring committee will be composed of their Qualifying committee. After candidacy, the mentoring committee will be composed of their Dissertation committee, which depending on the nature of a student’s thesis may include members of the Qualifying committee. At least one week prior to the annual meeting (which also includes the candidacy exam), the student will provide a brief progress report (3-page max, excluding non-mandatory figures), an updated CV, and a copy of their IDP. At the beginning of the meeting, the student will meet alone with the committee, followed by a meeting of the advisor(s) with the committee. The committee chair will fill out the PhD Committee Meeting Report.

Access the Progress Report Submission form her e.

The purpose of the Dissertation Committee is to provide objective advice and fresh points of view to the student and Advisor. A lively discussion may be expected at these meetings, which is sure to benefit the student and the student’s research. Committee meetings are also important for ensuring that the student is: i) on schedule to complete the Thesis in an appropriate time frame, including maintaining the appropriate balance of experiments, analysis, writing, and dissemination; ii) thinking about and effectively pursuing post-graduation career plans; and iii) at the appropriate time is given permission to defend.

Doctoral Program:

• Student Directory
• Fellowships + Support
• New Students
• Transfer Credits
• Degree Requirements
• M.D. + Ph.D.
• V.M.D. + Ph.D.
• Certificate Programs
• Diversity Advisors
• Academic Forms, Advising Resources and Feedback Forms

Your BE Contact:

Kathleen Venit Associate Director, Graduate Programs 240 Skirkanich Hall

Graduate Student Groups:

Graduate Association of Bioengineers

Graduate Student Engineering Group

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

The Graduate School

Template for annual reviews for doctoral students.

As part of an ongoing effort to foster good graduate student mentoring and facilitate communication between graduate advisors and advisees, The Graduate School has developed a template for annual reviews for doctoral (and potentially other) students .  The purpose is to provide a tool that programs can use to: (1) allow students to report and reflect on their progress and accomplishments during the previous year and plan their activities and efforts for the coming year, and (2) aid major advisors in providing their graduate students with feedback on their progress to date and plans.   The template is attached, along with examples of similar forms currently being used by some departments (English, Marine Sciences, and Psychology).  The template draws from examples such as these, and incorporates feedback received from the Graduate Faculty Council and the Executive Committee.

Importantly, the template is designed to be   customizable .  We anticipate that programs will modify it — adding, changing, or deleting items – to suit the specific needs of their programs.  Although use of this or any form is purely voluntary (i.e., there is no Graduate School requirement that annual reviews of this sort be conducted), we strongly urge programs to institute a process based on some version of a tool like this.

We are distributing this template now so that programs that want to do so can use it this academic year.  However, we view this as a “living document” that we will be revising as we receive feedback on it.  In addition, we will be developing guidance/tips on implementations suggestions and strategies that we will be posting on the TGS website, along with the template itself, over the coming months.

Download Template

If you have any questions or suggestions regarding the template itself or its use, please reach out to us at   [email protected]   or   [email protected] .

Kent E. Holsinger Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor Vice Provost for Graduate Education  and Dean of The Graduate School

Kathleen Segerson Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor Associate Dean of The Graduate School

Contact Information

860-486-3617

[email protected]

The Whetten Graduate Center, Second Floor University of Connecticut 438 Whitney Road Extension, Unit-1152 Storrs, CT 06269-1152

8:30am to 4:30pm Monday through Friday

UConn Today

• Graduate Students Take Center Stage at UConn Health
• Professor Cato T. Laurencin Discusses Regenerative Engineering and his Autobiography for Elsevier Distinguished Lecture
• Meet Jason Chang, First Head of New Social and Critical Inquiry Department
• Create and Succeed: Werth Institute Program Building Record of Success Engaging, Uplifting First-Year Women Entrepreneurs
• Laying a Foundation of Innovation

Upcoming Defenses

• Sep 5 Doctoral Dissertation Proposal Defense of Yuyang Hu 10:30 AM
• Sep 12 Doctoral Dissertation Defense of Antonia Caba 12:30 PM
• Sep 13 Abdullah Alhatem’s Doctoral Dissertation Defense 9:00 AM
• Sep 16 Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense of Dhan Rana 11:30 AM

View all Upcoming Defenses

PROGRESS OF THE DOCTORAL RESEARCH

You are required to submit yearly progress reports , documenting how your research has evolved. The first progress report consists of a PhD Research Proposal. Subsequently, you report annually on the progress of your research. Each report should be validated by your (co-)supervisors, and assessed by the other members of the supervisory committee (see below).

First Progress Report = PhD Research Proposal

Your first progress report consists of four steps: (1) draft a PhD Research Proposal, (2) organise a meeting with your supervisory committee, (3) draft a report based on that meeting, and (4) merge your PhD research proposal together with the signed (!) report, and upload it in KU Loket.

Precondition is that you the composition of your supervisory committee is approved (=9 months after you start your PhD).

In principle, your PhD Research Proposal (max. 20 pages) explains the planned research activities based on the work already undertaken. The proposal includes the provisional title of the dissertation, a problem statement, a clarification of the selected theoretical and methodological approach, and a work plan.

The supervisory committee will discuss the proposal and decide whether it can be approved, with or without amendments. The results determine whether your participation in the Doctoral Programme can be continued. The evaluation takes place on the basis of two criteria: (1) the progress made in the doctoral research, and (2) the advances you have made regarding academic ability and research maturity.

A well-founded report is drawn up of this meeting, using the correct template (see below). All members of the committee have to sign the report.

Merge the PhD Research Proposal and the signed report of the meeting of the supervisory committee to one pdf document. Upload that document in KU Loket (PhD Progress). Your first progress report will be submitted to the Faculty Doctoral Committee for approval during the first meeting after your submission.

• Academic year 2022-2023 : your first progress report should be uploaded at the latest one year after the start of your PhD .
• As of academic year 2023-2024 : your first progress report should be uploaded at the latest 11 months after the start of your PhD .

Other relevant information

If the supervisory committee believes that in view of the doctoral student’s research activities or self-supporting status a different mode of reporting and/or of assessing is more appropriate for the first progress report, the doctoral committee will be informed in good time by a reasoned letter. The doctoral committee will build up its own jurisprudence regarding the exceptions on the expected first progress report.

If the PhD researcher wishes to depart substantially from the approved research proposal during the work on his/her dissertation or wishes to change the subject of the dissertation, the supervisor again convenes the supervisory committee. In the case of a significant change to the accepted research proposal, the supervisory committee determines whether the drafting and evaluation of a new research proposal is appropriate. In the case of an intended modification of the dissertation’s subject, the PhD researcher submits a new PhD proposal to the supervisory committee. The supervisory committee assesses a new PhD proposal in accordance with the procedure outlined above.

My supervisory committe?

Following the preparation of the first progress report, the supervisor and the PhD student set up a supervisory committee. The supervisory committee consists of the supervisor, any co-supervisors and at least two other members.

The supervisory committee monitors the progress of the doctoral research by evaluating the annual progress reports. When desired, the doctoral student or the promoter can reach out to the members of the advisory committee for additional discussions. More information regarding the supervisory committee and the examination committee on this page .

Yearly Progress Reports

Subsequently, you report on an annual basis on the progress of the doctoral research, and in addition, if required, when applying for or extension of a scholarship or mandate.  You can also reach out to the members of the supervisory committee for additional discussions, which provides an opportunity to receive constructive academic feedback on the research conducted. 

Every progress report is validated by the (co-)supervisor and is assessed by the other members of the supervisory committee. The result is substantiated and recorded in writing and sent to the PhD researcher and the Doctoral Committee.

The templates for your first progress report and the subsequent yearly progress reports can be found under the " PhD Templates " section of this website.

MILESTONE First Progress Report (=PhD Research Proposal)

To validate this milestone, you should upload following documents:

• Your PhD Research Proposal
• The First Progress Report (see Templates ) with the required signatures (original, digital or email approval)

Merg the documents into one PDF file and upload it in you KU Loket in ‘PhD progress’ in KU Loket.

Difficulties with uploading the file? Try to shorten the name of the document (e.g. "ProgressReport_yourname_year")

MILESTONE Yearly Progress Reports

To validate this milestone, you should upload following document:

• The Yearly Progress Report (see Templates ) with the required signatures (original, digital or email approval)

You can only upload one document for each milestone. If you collect digital signatures or approval via email, you have to merge all the information together in one PDF file. 

Progress report

Evaluate your progress.

The progress report allows to better monitor the progress of students in their program. It also makes it possible to evaluate the progress made  during the last year and to define the objectives for the following year. The information provided in the report ensures that all students are making systematic and consistent progress in their research.

It’s also an opportunity for the student and the thesis supervisor to meet and to take stock of the research and adjust accordingly. It is important to take advantage of these meetings to review the research goals and agree on the expected progress in the months to come. It is possible that several versions of the progress report are needed before coming to a final version.

Download the Annual Research Progress Report form (PDF, 796 KB) .

Who must submit a thesis progress report arrow_drop_down

All students registered in a thesis program must submit an annual progress report.   Students who receive scholarships from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) or from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) must also submit progress reports.

How to submit the progress report arrow_drop_down

The student must submit the progress report to the thesis supervisor by submitting a Service Request accessible through  uoZone . The supervisor will then assess the student's progress. He or she will decide if the report is satisfactory or not, by comparing the objectives achieved by the student with the objectives established in the previous progress report.  If the student does not reach these objectives, the progress report could be deemed unsatisfactory.  It is therefore important that the student communicates with his supervisor throughout his studies in order to ensure an adequate progression of the academic path and the research. It is also possible that, following a meeting or a consultation, the student and the thesis supervisor decide to modify the objectives established during the last progress report. If this is the case, both must agree with the changes.

Once reviewed and approved by the thesis supervisor, the report will be submitted to the administration for verification and final approval.  The progress report will then be noted in the student's file.

When to submit a progress report arrow_drop_down

First report: During the second year of the program, specifically during the 4th term. Some faculties or units may however require a progress report before the 4th term. Following reports: One report per year until the submission of the thesis. If the progress is unsatisfactory, a report may be required more frequently.

Please note:

• If the student has been granted an extension to complete the program, he or she will have to submit a progress report each term.
• If the student is requesting a leave of absence, he or she must submit a progress report at the same time in order for the request to be approved.

Unsatisfactory progress reports arrow_drop_down

A progress report may be deemed unsatisfactory by the thesis supervisor or by the administration. 

A report can be unsatisfactory for several reasons. For example:

• The thesis supervisor thinks that the student should be more advanced in the research;
• External factors are influencing the research;
• The objectives achieved by the student are not sufficient and/or are not aligned with the established objectives;
• The research findings are not clear or do not support the thesis sufficiently.

In the case of an unsatisfactory report, the student will be informed of the imposed recommendations to follow. For example:

• Submit a detailed study plan;
• Establish more detailed goals with the thesis supervisor;
• Meet with a thesis committee.

Please note:  After being informed that the report was unsatisfactory, the student will be asked to submit a new progress report that must be satisfactory before the next term.  Students who receive two unsatisfactory progress reports during their studies shall be withdrawn from the program.

Consequences of not submitting a progress report arrow_drop_down

If the student fails to submit a progress report, the access to registration will be blocked until the student remedies the situation. Not registering could have major financial impact and may eventually lead to the student's academic file being closed without further notice.  Any scholarship may be suspended or cancelled.

Tips for establishing effective communication with your thesis supervisor arrow_drop_down

• The student must stay in touch with the thesis supervisor and meetings should be frequent to ensure the supervisor is well informed of the student's progress;
• uOttawa encourages students to prepare self-evaluation reports on a regular basis and give them to the supervisor for feedback;
• After each meeting, the student could make a summary including items discussed and the progress reached;
• At the end of each meeting the student and the supervisor should plan the next meetings and establish objectives to be met. If possible, set the date of the following meeting.

• Press Enter to activate screen reader mode.

Department of Computer Science

Progress report & annual status conversation.

The supervisor conducts an annual status conversation with their doctoral students. This consists of two separate parts, the progress report and the annual status coversation.  

Doctoral students who have been definitively admitted write an annual progress report on the status and planned progress of their research project, as well as on any significant deviations from the research project described in the doctoral plan. A template is available here .

It is the responsibility of the conversation participants to keep this document until the completion of the doctorate.  

The supervisor must conduct an individual status conversation with each doctoral student at least once a year based on the progress report.

The annual status conversation consists of two separate parts:

• Academic progress
• Assessment, career and personal development

The first part deals with the doctorate and the research work. The previously written progress report forms the basis for this conversation where all points recorded in the doctoral plan, the next steps and, if necessary, significant changes to the research project are discussed. It is recommended to involve the second advisor in the first part.

The second part is a development discussion that includes mutual feedback and the further development of competencies. This part is conducted confidentially between the supervisor and the doctoral student. A template is available here .

In any case, both parts - the progress report and the result of the annual status conversation - are sent to the second advisor for information.

• Coming soon
• Recent changes
• Academic regulations
• Programme and module design and approval
• Assessment, awards and degree classification
• Personal tutoring, student support and development
• Concerns, complaints and appeals
• Registration and attendance
• Research degree policies and guidance
• Progression
• Supervision
• Research programme regulations
• Regulations for programmes which are not currently running
• Student engagement and representation
• Studies away from the University
• Professional Work Based Learning
• Contingency classification and progression regulations
• Exceptional classification and progression regulations
• Exceptional regulations: Covid-19

Progression Review of research students

This page sets out the Progression Review process which applies to research degree students in all years of their programme, including basic elements, possible outcomes and appeals. Its content is relevant to staff and postgraduate researchers registered for level 7 (masters) and level 8 (doctoral) degrees across all of the UK, China and Malaysia campuses.

Search the manual

1. introduction.

Includes:  basic principles; Progression Review activities throughout the year; progression monitoring; Internal Assessors; maximum time for completion of thesis examination

All postgraduate researchers (PGRs) registered on research degrees lasting more than 1 year full-time or 2 years part-time (e.g. MPhil or Professional Doctorates but not MRes etc.) are subject to progression monitoring and formal review.

The basic principles of Progression Review are common to all postgraduate researchers (PGRs) and all years of programmes who go through such a review. 

In all cases, the purpose of Progression Monitoring and formal review is to ensure that the progress towards meeting the required outcomes at each Stage is sufficient to ensure achievement of the doctoral (level 8) or masters (level 7) outcomes to the required standard, and completion of the thesis examination (including any viva voce examination) within the period of registered study.

For more information about the UNQF, please consult the following:

University of Nottingham Qualifications Framework

Relevant adjustments may need to be made for PGRs studying away from the University or following programmes that involve a significant taught element.

Part-time students

For part-time PGRs, all the processes for the Progression Review will happen every other year rather than yearly and periods of time quoted should be doubled. 

Basic principles of PGR progression monitoring and review

Progress monitoring begins through regular supervisory meetings when the PGR first registers on the programme. These recorded meetings continue throughout the period of registered study and thesis completion period, until thesis submission. Formal records of these meetings should be made, agreed and held securely in the PGR’s supervision records. Progression Review information should be given to the PGR at Induction and then reinforced throughout their registered study.

For more information about responsibilities of the supervisor, please consult the following:

Responsibilities of the Supervisor

In-year progress meetings with supervisory teams can be formal or informal, one-to-one or in a group, as is appropriate for the timing and progress of the PGR. 

For the recommended steps and process in planning for PGR Progression Review, please consult the following:

PGR Progression Review consists of formal assessment of progress against the doctoral or other relevant published outcomes through several components.

• Records of progress recorded in the required minimum number of regular supervisory meetings conducted regularly throughout the period of registered study, including information on: agreed research plans and milestones; progress made; any problems encountered and solutions proposed; and any other pertinent information. As these records form part of the formal assessment of PGR progression at Progression Review, they should contain a record of, for example, any extenuating circumstances, or any concerns about progress, or reasons for congratulation on success. Records of progress meetings should be available to all the team members, including the PGR and all supervisors. 
• Formal Progression Review is assessed against progress towards meeting the required outcomes at each Stage of study in the programme, usually through a written report; 
• Completion of mandatory elements such as training and development, taught modules, laboratory rotations, career planning, engagement with professional development opportunities, and career planning are also reviewed.  

The published criteria for Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 progression are badged against the outcomes in the University of Nottingham Qualification Framework and the QAA doctoral outcomes. They are designed to enable Assessors to take a consistent and transparent approach in determining the progress of PGRs. 

For more information about Assessment criteria for Progression Reviews, please consult the following:

Formal assessment of progression at Stages 1 and 2 requires a meeting involving an Internal Assessor and should be held as an in-person or virtual event. The School may appoint more than one Internal Assessor if appropriate, for example if the research is inter/transdisciplinary in nature. In such instances all Internal Assessors should be actively engaged in all aspects of the formal Progression Review.

The appointment of the Internal Assessor(s) should be initiated within 3 months of registration and the PGR made aware of this, and the appointment should be confirmed at least 3 months before the formal Progression Review begins. It is strongly recommended that where possible the Internal Assessor(s) are involved in the Stage 3 Progression Review for continuity and quality assurance purposes. The Stage 3 Progression Review can be conducted by the supervisory team but should not be conducted by a single supervisor.

For more information on the role, responsibilities and appointment of the Internal Assessor, please consult the following:

Role and responsibilities of the Internal Assessor

Progression Reviews at Stages 1 and 2 should use the core Review elements below, and may include additional methods of assessment deemed necessary by Schools, to assess progress to date against the Stage appropriate published criteria. When including additional elements Schools must pay due regard to PGR and Assessor assessment load.  

If progress is not sufficient to meet the necessary outcomes within the period of registered study, the aim must be to meet these, and complete the research and thesis examination within a maximum of three years (for MPhil) or four years from first registration (for PhD, MVM, MD, MVS, and professional doctorate) irrespective of programme duration. This maximum duration can only be changed in individual cases if the PGR holds an award with terms and conditions that vary this maximum period and the School approves the arrangement. Note that some awards may have a maximum duration of less than 4 years. 

2.  Timing of formal Progression Review and stages of PGR study

Includes:  for all PGRs; different stages of study; purpose and timing of formal Progression Reviews; 4 year PhD programmes with a substantial taught, training and development or laboratory rotation element in Stage 1; recommended latest timings for Stage 3 Progression Review. 

The latest time at which Stage 3 Progression Review (confirmation that doctoral outcomes can be achieved within 6 months) can take place are in the table below.

3.  Minimum elements of Stage 1 and 2 Progression Review

Includes:  for all PGRs; for doctoral PGRs undergoing confirmation of registration; 4 year PhD programmes with a substantial taught, training and development or laboratory rotation element in Stage 1

Progression Reviews at Stages 1 and 2 should use the core Review elements below to assess progress to date against the Stage appropriate published criteria, to enable the PGR to demonstrate that they have achieved the required outcomes at each Stage.  

When including any additional assessment methods, Schools must pay due consideration to assessment load and the balance of PGR workload for Progression Review against their ongoing research progress. It should not be expected that PGRs stop research / thesis writing in order to devote time to the Progression Review. 

Schools must ensure that the following elements are included in their formal Progression Review process:

For PGRs undergoing Stage 1 and Stage 2 Progression Review:

• A formal summative assessment of PGR progress to date. This is assessed against published criteria/outcomes by:

a) a written report by the PGR on their progress to date and 

b) through questioning at a meeting between the PGR and the Internal Assessor and (if the School wishes, other staff who have not previously been closely associated with the PGR's work). 

The meeting should have a clear agenda. It should begin with a reinforcement of what the meeting will cover and include opportunities to discuss progress to date, the PGR’s future research plans, and the extent of progress towards the doctoral outcomes, the wider research environment and its suitability to support the planned research, and the supervision the PGR receives. 

• Plans for completion and submission of the thesis within the period of registered study, and completion of thesis examination in a maximum of 4 years, bearing in mind that PGRs do not have a dedicated ‘writing up’ period, and thesis writing should be integrated alongside the research. 
• Independent written assessments from the Internal Assessor and supervisory team* on the PGR’s performance to date. The Internal Assessor’s report should include information on PGR performance, progress, attendance and engagement throughout the period of study. Any problems encountered or required support identified by the PGR in discussion or in their written report should be noted in the Internal Assessor’s report, where appropriate. The report from the supervisory team should include any concerns with PGR progress to date, successes or problems encountered or necessary mitigations required to maintain progress. 
• Formative feedback on how improvements might be made on both the written report and the meeting from the Internal Assessor. This can be verbal feedback at the end of the meeting. 
• Confirmation that the required minimum number of supervision sessions has taken place, that the records of supervision meetings are available, and that these record the progress made to date and highlight any problems encountered.
• The Internal Assessor should be able to access evidence that the PGR has attended any modules and passed any assessments that form a compulsory part of their research programme.
• The content of any report submitted to a PGR’s sponsor, if they have one, should also be considered as part of the review. 

Note that the Progression Reviews should also consider and take into account any significant research and/or personal impacts that have /may have significant disruptive impacts on research progress. Consideration of this should include information about how the PGR has managed to progress their research in light of any impacts, the extent to which they have mitigated these impacts and how they have had to change their research plans, activities, and goals/milestones accordingly.

After the meeting with the PGR, the Internal Assessor and supervisors should share their independent reports with the PGR for their comment and response. If the likely recommendation is for reassessment, or if there is disagreement in outcome, the reports should be shared in a meeting with the Independent Assessor and/or the supervisors so the PGR has support when this is communicated. This can be during the verbal feedback after the meeting. 

In light of the meeting, and discussion of the independent reports and the PGR response, the Internal Assessor and the principal supervisor should agree a joint recommendation on the outcome to the Head of School. The agreed joint recommendation will be recorded in the PGR’s record. 

4. Elements of Stage 3 Progression Review

Includes:  consideration of progress to thesis submission; minimum elements

The Stage 3 Progression Review should determine whether the PGR is likely to meet the doctoral outcomes within the next 6 months. It should include a detailed consideration of progress, including the progress made with writing the thesis, and a plan to ensure that the thesis is submitted within the period of registered study. If this is thought to be unachievable at Stage 3 Progression Review (for PGRs on 36 or 42 month programmes), plans must be made for degree completion, including thesis examination, within a maximum of 4 years from initial registration.

It is strongly recommended that the Internal Assessor is also involved in the Stage 3 Progression Review for continuity and quality assurance purposes.

In addition to the minimum elements of Stages 1 and 2 Progression Review, Stage 3 Progression Review should include the following elements:

• a detailed evaluation of how the work to date shows that the PGR has already or will meet /achieve the doctoral outcomes. 
• plans for the PGR to achieve any doctoral outcomes that are not yet met, showing how these will be met within 6 months; 
• detailed information on the progress made on writing the thesis, and plans for its completion (noting that the thesis is expected to be completed within the period of registered study, and a detailed plan for thesis completion and submission). 
• discussion of any exceptional circumstances, unforeseen problems and mitigations that have been necessary to ensure progression and timely completion

Note that if the required outcomes relating to the generation of empirical novel research contributions are unlikely to be met within 6 months, the PGR is unlikely to be able to progress to thesis submission and examination within 6 months.  In this case, the Internal Assessor and supervisors should consider the recommendation that the PGR does not progress and whether an exceptional extension to the period of registered study is required. 

5. The possible outcomes of formal Progression Review

Includes:  outcomes where assessors agree; recommendations on progression; circumstances and outcomes when progression is not recommended

Outcomes where the Internal Assessor and supervisory teams agree:

1. Progression to the next stage of study is recommended. 

In order to make this recommendation there should be records that the PGR has been progressing according to plans throughout the year. Progress must be confirmed as satisfactory in the meeting through assessment against the stage-specific criteria, taking into account discipline / field specific differences in doctoral study and structure. The supervisors and assessors should agree that the PGR will be able to meet the doctoral outcomes in the required time. 

Outcomes of approved progression to the next stage of study are:

a) For Stage 1 PhD PGRs, confirmation of their status as PhD candidates.

b) For Stage 1 and 2 progression, re-registration on the same degree in the following academic session.

c) For all stages, provided the PGR agrees, the assessors can recommend a transfer of registration to another, usually higher, degree (e.g. from MPhil to PhD). In this instance, a transfer form must be completed. If a transfer is recommended at Stage 3, and the review did not involve an Internal Assessor, then an interview with the Internal Assessor is required to confirm the transfer to the new degree. 

d) For Stage 3 PGRs whose progress is satisfactory but who are likely to submit the thesis after the end of their period of registered study, the recommendation will be that on completion of the period of registered study they enter Thesis pending. 

e) For PGRs in Stage 3 who are achieving the necessary progress to meet the doctoral outcomes by the planned date, the recommendation will be maintenance of current status up to the end of their period of registered study. 

For recommendations d) and e), the PGR must have met the requirements for the minimum period of registered study, completed the empirical research and not exceeded 4 years of study. 

2. Progression is not recommended and progress is required to be reassessed. 

For this recommendation there will be information in the supervision records that the PGR and supervisory teams have discussed the reasons for unsatisfactory progress, and that attempts have been made to support the PGR to improve. The progress to date should have been assessed in the meeting with the Internal Assessor against the stage-specific criteria and found to be insufficient, taking into account discipline / field specific differences in doctoral study structure. The Internal Assessor and supervisory teams’ independent reports should agree that the PGR requires additional time and support to be able to demonstrate their ability to progress to the next stage at reassessment. In these cases, supervisory records must be kept, and should be available for the re-assessment. 

a) Stage 1 PGRs on a supportive or corrective plan of action remain on probationary status until confirmation of Stage 1 progression. 

b) At all Stages PGRs are registered/re-registered for PhD in the following academic session with an agreed plan of supportive or corrective action in place for a limited time. 

c) For Stage 3 PGRs who have made insufficient progress in research and writing to allow them to meet the doctoral outcomes within the following 6 months, the assessors may recommend a reassessment after a period of up to 3 months. There should be a plan for supportive corrective action during this time to support the PGR to meet the doctoral outcomes by the end of the period of registered study. 

d) For Stage 3 PGRs who have made insufficient progress in research to allow them  to meet the doctoral outcomes and submit the thesis for examination within the following 6 months, the assessors may recommend an exceptional extension to the PGR’s period of registration for up to one further year. Reassessment for ability to progress to thesis  should be done after no more than 6 months. Thesis completion and examination are still expected within the 4 year maximum period.

e) The maximum number of Progression Reviews for a PGR at any stage is limited to 2. If an Exceptional Circumstances claim is submitted and upheld, the Progression Review may be repeated as a First Sit.

3. Progression is not recommended  - suggested change to registration status.

All Stages: With the agreement of the PGR and on recommendation in the joint report, transfer of registration to another degree (e.g. from PhD to MPhil, or MPhil to MRes). In this instance, re-assessment of progress is not required and a transfer form must be completed. 

The reasons for a recommendation for reassessment or registration on another degree must be explained to the PGR as soon as possible.

In cases of referral for re-assessment, the PGR must have the opportunity to discuss the decision with the Internal Assessor and the supervisory team. If necessary, the PGR should be referred to the School Postgraduate Student Advisor (SPSA), Senior Tutor or other appropriate welfare support officer. The supervisory team should offer the PGR support in addressing the outcome of the review, and if necessary, in producing their response to the assessment in the reports.

6. Resolution of disagreement on Progression Review recommendations

Includes:  process to be followed to reach resolution on the recommendation for progression; timeline for resolution. 

If the independent reports from the supervisory team and the Independent Assessor(s) disagree on the recommended outcome of the Progression Review, the following process should be followed.

The PGR should be referred to the supervisors, SPSA, Senior Tutor or other appropriate welfare support officer for support in addressing the outcome of the review, depending on where disagreement lies, and the required support. They should have the opportunity to discuss the Review with the supervisory team and / or Internal Assessor(s). They should have support in producing their response to the assessment either from the supervisors or from other members of the PGR support team. The PGR should receive the feedback from the review and be given an appropriate time to produce their response.

1. If the Internal Assessor recommends progression but the supervisory team does not. 

The independent and joint reports, and the PGR’s response, should be shared with the Head of School or delegate. The Head of School may call a meeting of the Internal Assessor, supervisors and PGR to discuss the case. The Head of School will then make a decision based on the information in the reports and from the discussion as to whether the PGR should progress, or be referred for reassessment. 

2. If the supervisory team recommends progression but the Internal Assessor does not. 

The supervisory team should set up a meeting for discussion of the proposed outcome to which the Internal Assessor; the PGR should also be invited and have made their response to the independent reports. The group should attempt to resolve the outcome by discussion. If there is information that is relevant to the discussion that was not available to the Internal Assessor in the Progression Review documentation and/or meeting and that might affect the judgement of progress, such as extenuating circumstances, this should be made available in the discussions. If agreement can be reached, then the recommendation will follow the process in Section 5.

If agreement on the outcome cannot be resolved through discussion, the case should be referred to the Head of School as in 1 above.

Such discussions should be held in a timely manner, aiming to reach a resolution and recommended outcome within 1 month of the Progression Review meeting. 

7. Requirements for Progression Review re-assessment and outcomes

Includes:  reassessment of progress; support for PGRs

If progress needs to be reassessed at any stage, the PGR must be given detailed information on the goals and requirements for improved performance, an appropriate and defined timeframe in which to meet these, and support in achieving the required improvement. They should also be made aware of the possible outcomes of the reassessment process.  

The format for re-assessment will be the same as for the initial Progression Review. The PGR should update their written report, focussing specifically on how they have met the agreed objectives. A plan for maintained progress should also be produced and considered at the re-assessment meeting. 

Stage 1 PGRs are re-registered on a continued probationary basis until re-assessment. PGRs at stages 2 and 3 are re-registered/continue to be registered for the PhD until re-assessment. 

When a PGR is referred for reassessment, the following information must be provided to the PGR as soon as possible:

• Feedback on the performance in all aspects of the Progression Review, including clear detailed guidance on the requirements for improvement, with SMART objectives/goals and/or milestones;
• Explicit information on the potential outcomes of re-assessment;
• An explicit time/date for the re-assessment of progress, which should give sufficient time for the required progress to be made. Normally this would not be more than 3 months after the original Progression Review. In exceptional circumstances and with the approval of QSC, the time given for improvement for PGRs at stages 1 and 2 may be up to 6 months; 
• The PGR must receive appropriate academic support and guidance to support them to achieve the required improvements. Academic support is particularly important for PGRs in progressing to Stage 3, to ensure that PGRs get on track to meet the required outcomes, and are prepared for the completion and examination of the thesis; 
• If necessary and appropriate, the PGR should be referred for support outside the supervisory team, e.g. welfare or disability support teams.  

8. Outcomes of Progression Review re-assessment

Includes:  the possible outcomes from re-assessment following satisfactory progress; outcomes on unsatisfactory progress; required evidence of progress. 

If the Internal Assessor and the supervisors disagree on the recommendation after  reassessment, they should follow the process for resolution. This should include the Head of School irrespective of where the disagreement in recommendation lies. 

a) For Stage 1 doctoral PGRs, confirmation of their status as doctoral candidates. 

b) For Stages 1 and 2 progression, re-registration on the same degree in the following academic session.

c) For Stage 3 PGRs whose progress is satisfactory but who are likely to submit the thesis after the end of their period of registered study, the recommendation will be that on completion of the period of registered study they enter Thesis pending. 

d) For Stage 3 PGRs who are on track to achieve the necessary progress to meet the doctoral outcomes by the planned date, and move to thesis submission, the recommendation would be maintenance of current status up to the end of their period of registered study at which point they would, if necessary, enter Thesis pending until thesis submission. 

For recommendations c) and d), the PGR must have met the requirements for the minimum period of registered study, completed the research and have not exceeded 4 years of study. A recommendation for registration for a higher degree cannot be made as a result of progression re-assessment.

If performance in the re-assessment does not meet the criteria and the required progress / improvement has not been achieved as agreed by the supervisory team and Internal Assessor, the recommendation by the School to the University should be that, for all PGRs at all stages

Either 

a) the PGR is required to re-register on another, usually lower degree (e.g. PhD to MPhil, MPhil to MRes). 

b) the PGR’s registration is terminated. 

Termination of registration can only be recommended when supported by evidence that the PGR has received written warnings on lack of progress during the period of study, and the period of supported improvement. 

In these cases, all supervisory records and Progression Review paper work must be submitted to QSC for approval.

9. Considerations of Covid-19 or other major impacts 

Where the recommendations to extend the PGR's registration status relate to research or personal impacts resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, the PGR can confirm the need for an extension to the 4 year maximum period, by either following the extension to the registered period of study, or the extension to Thesis pending procedure, depending on whether further research is deemed necessary or not.

Other significant impacts on PGR progression, either personal or research-related, such as major disruption in access to facilities, should also be taken into account in Progression Review. When circumstances are out of the PGRs control, these should be considered fairly, with respect and consideration for the impact on the PGR. 

Forms and documentation

Includes: flowchart for progression review and submission; progression review forms; request to register for an additional period of study; request to transfer student

UK campus only  

• Registration during thesis pending period form

* this includes a section for Visa and Immigration team approval

UNM campus only    

Unnc campus only .

• School PGR Progression Review Form (Probationary PhD students)
• School PGR Progression Review Form (excluding Probationary PhD students)

UNUK students   

Student services, unnc students .

UNM students 

Staff       , related content.

Portland Building, University of Nottingham University Park Nottingham, NG7 2RD

Legal information

• Terms and conditions
• Posting rules
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Charity gateway
• Cookie policy

Connect with the University of Nottingham through social media and our blogs .

Browser does not support script.

What to include in a First Year PhD progress Report?

Hi, I have been asked to prepare a progress report on the work to date I have done as a first year PhD student. This report will be read by a research committee (made of professors in my discipline). I will also have to give them a presentation. I am 9 months into the first year of my PhD. For the first 5 months I was doing the PhD part-time. For the last 4 months I have been doing it full time. Can anyone suggest what I should include in this report/presentation? Also what would there expectations me regarding the amount of work I have done so far as a first year PhD student? All suggestions welcome. Anna.

Hi Anna10.. I dont know what area of research u are, so it may be different for you, and it all depends what ur Uni requirments are, because i believe each uni requires a different format. But generally you would need to include, an introduction to ur work, literature review if u have done some, Methods so far, results so far, discuss what u can of them. Usually the report is not too long, but i found it useful writing my progress reports as if they were part of my final thesis, u will be greatful that u done this when u get to ur writing stage. Oh yeah and dont forget to add what u will do next. For the presentation, again it depends on how long u have to present, ask ur supervisor, we had 15 - 20 minutes. Again, an introduction about ur work and what it involves, talk to them about what methods u used and the outcomes u have so far. And ur next steps.

ooh a nice gant chart/timeline always goes down well in my department. In fact I once did a presentation with 1 gant chart for each year of my PhD and then an overall one haha, so there were 4 in my presentation! It just shows you are thinking about the future, how to complete in three years (ha!) and shows organisational skills I suppose. If its a presentation I always like to include a 'research difficulty' i.e. "how do I source participants for xyz" because then it uses up all your question time so they can't ask difficult stuff!

Sneaks, I like the way you think! For very much the same reason I like to put a good few film clips in my presentations ... ! In our dept there are fairly clear guidelines on what is expected in the progress report, for example, if you're a full-time 1st year then you have to write a 10,000 word lit review, a timetable for completion and an outline of the structure of the thesis, oh, and evidence of at least 3 meetings with a supervisor. Part-time students have a 5000 word limit, I think. It might be an idea to have a word with the research administrator in your department - they know EVERYTHING! And make sure that those assessing your work know that you have only been full-time for the last four months. You know what these academics are like (!). A few years ago a friend of mine started their PhD in February but when she was assessed in April it was evident that they had all forgotten because they had a bit of a go at her because they though that she done stuff all since October. Silly academics!

I'd check your university guidelines if you can. But otherwise, ours were quite specific in terms of what sections we should include in the report: Background, aims, methods, plan of investigation, results obtained, future work, references. (on the other hand no one seemed to know exactly what should go under each heading so I made it up!) For the presentation I guess people want to know what you've been doing. If you have no data yet, you could do a talk on what you are planning on doing, along with the background to the study. I don't think there are hard and fast rules on what should be done in the first year. It depends so much on the field, but also the individual project. At the end of my first year I had no real data to speak of, but I had a clear plan, which seemed to work fine. Another had spent a year in a lab and had a load of data. we both passed fine (up)

Post your reply

Postgraduate Forum

Masters Degrees

PhD Opportunities

Postgraduate Forum Copyright ©2024 All rights reserved

PostgraduateForum Is a trading name of FindAUniversity Ltd FindAUniversity Ltd, 77 Sidney St, Sheffield, S1 4RG, UK. Tel +44 (0) 114 268 4940 Fax: +44 (0) 114 268 5766

Welcome to the world's leading Postgraduate Forum

An active and supportive community.

Support and advice from your peers.

Your postgraduate questions answered.

Use your experience to help others.

Sign Up to Postgraduate Forum

Enter your email address below to get started with your forum account

Login to your account

Enter your username below to login to your account

Reset password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password

An email has been sent to your email account along with instructions on how to reset your password. If you do not recieve your email, or have any futher problems accessing your account, then please contact our customer support.

or continue as guest

Postgrad Forum uses cookies to create a better experience for you

To ensure all features on our website work properly, your computer, tablet or mobile needs to accept cookies. Our cookies don’t store your personal information, but provide us with anonymous information about use of the website and help us recognise you so we can offer you services more relevant to you. For more information please read our privacy policy

Research guidance, Research Journals, Top Universities

PhD Six Month Progress Report Sample/ Format

Annexure-II

UNIVERSITY NAME

SEMESTER WISE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE RESEARCH SCHOLAR CONFIDENTIAL

Six Monthly Progress Report of the Research work done for the period from 01 November 2017 to April 2018 of the Research Scholar.

• Name of the Research Scholar:  Mr. Daniel Sehwag
• Subject:   Computer Science
• Topic registered for Ph.D. Degree:  Optimum web personalization system using semantic annotation.
• Research paper published during this tenure and conference/seminar attended (if any)

  A. Research Paper Published:

• An optimum approach for preprocessing of web user query.

B. Conferences Attended:

• National Conference – 2
• International Conference – 3

C. Workshop Attended:

• One Week National Workshop on  “Statistics through SPSS and R” at   University of Texas.
• Three day National workshop on Research Methodology at GCW Parade, India.

Name of the Supervisor: Dr. Arjun Kumar

Name of the Co-Supervisor: Dr. Flemming

Description of the guidance                 

___________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Signature of Candidate

Remarks of the supervisor on the work done by the candidate on topic:

   …………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………..…………………………

Signature of the supervisor

Remarks of the co-supervisor on the work done by the candidate on topic:

Signature of the co-supervisor

PhD six month progress report sample  PPT | PhD  half-yearly  progress report sample | 1st year  PhD progress report  example first year  PhD | PhD six month progress report sample

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Annual Progress Report for Phd Students

Total Page： 16

File Type： pdf , Size： 1020Kb

• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Annual Progress Report for Graduate Students and Advisors (including form to be completed by advisor)

Each student will meet with representatives of the Graduate Program Coordinating Committee in the spring semester to review progress and identify any concerns. The purpose of this meeting is to:

1) Encourage the student to think critically about his/her own progress (or lack thereof) and goals for both the immediate and long-term future.

2) Increase a sense of accountability on behalf of graduate students, and motivate students moving at a slow pace to increase their productivity and involvement in the program.

3) Remind students that to be a truly successful graduate student, one should (ideally) demonstrate success in multiple areas (research, funding, teaching, service), and provide examples for how to do that.

4) Provide a clear paper trail in case situations arise in which there is confusion or disagreement about a student's progress.

The annual meeting also provides an opportunity for students to raise any concerns, and provide feedback about the program and their graduate experience.

In preparation for progress review meetings,

• The student writes a report about their progress, and submits it to their advisor and committee for review and comments. This should occur in the first half of the spring semester. Instructions and template for the student report are available at the program website, or from Diane Lavalliere.

• The advisor reviews and signs the student’s report, and then also fills out an evaluation describing his/her view of the student's progress. Instructions and template for the advisor report are available at the program website, or from Diane Lavalliere. Reports must be submitted at least one week before scheduled meetings, normally by mid-April.

• Instructors for whom the student has served as a teaching assistant provide comments on their teaching. (If instructors have previously provided feedback as part of fellowship or other applications, they needn’t do so again.) Comments must be submitted at least one week before scheduled meetings.

All reports and comments will be submitted to Diane Lavalliere, who will schedule a review meeting for each student with at least two members of the GPCC (not including the advisor), normally between mid- April and mid-May. Following the meeting, comments and suggestions from the committee will be forwarded to the student and advisor, and all review documents will be shared with the student’s committee.

rev 061716/JAB Annual Progress Report for Graduate Students (JUNE 2016 TO MAY 2017) This p ortion is to be completed by the Advisor

Studen UNH t ID: Name:

1. Has the student made acceptable progress during the evaluation period? Please comment below.

2. Please comment on the expected and achieved outcomes of all coursework, teaching (if applicable), independent study and thesis/dissertation work.

3. Please comment on the overall academic performance of the student, including seminar attendance and participation, as well as any other activity relevant to graduate education (Participation in Graduate Research Conference, other conferences, Graduate senate, etc.)

Advisor Signature ______Date ______

rev 061716/JAB