phd annual progress report

• 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

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

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

• Professor Folta to Co-Lead National Academy of Sciences Committee
• ‘Mouth Taping’ Not the Answer for Better Sleep
• The School of Nursing’s Largest First-Year Class
• Podcast: What Aerosmith Can Teach Us About Vocal Injury
• UConn Law Welcomes New Faculty

Upcoming Defenses

• Sep 9 Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense of Jierui Zhou 9:30 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

• Show search form Hide search form
• Quick links
• Staff search
• Search Search --> Websites Staff search Start search

Annual Progress Reports

Doctoral candidates have to submit a progress report every year once they have passed the public presentation. The annual progress reports serve two purposes:

First, they take stock of the progress made during each year of the doctoral studies. This may sound trivial, yet it helps both doctoral candidates and their supervisors to keep track of their doctoral projects and to avoid pitfalls that could have been easily avoided in retrospect (e.g. unrealistic timetable, procrastination, etc.).

Second, in the annual reports changes can be documented that become necessary or even desirable during the doctoral studies which could not have been anticipated when the dissertation agreement was signed. For instance, it might occur that the initially intended data collection becomes impossible because access to special archives or datasets was denied. Alternatively, it might be that new opportunities turn up, such as a new conference or workshop on the topic of the doctoral project. These changes to the dissertation agreement need to be documented in the annual reports. However, it is important to emphasize that ultimately it is up to the Director of the Doctoral Study Programme to accept these changes.

 Submission of Annual Progress Reports

The annual progress report has to be sent to the respective SSC. Please check the website of your SSC for submission deadlines and for documents which have to be submitted in addition to the annual progress report.

Please note that for many funding schemes (e.g. dissertation completion fellowship) studying according to the university regulations is required. This includes the subsmission of annual progress reports.

 Downloads

Annual Progress Report

DZ.V2 Annual Report.doc

File size:  191 kB

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. 

Select language

Graduate School of Life Sciences

Annual phd progress meeting.

The annual PhD progress meeting, involving the PhD candidate, supervisory team ( promotoren and copromotoren ), and mentors , aims to monitor project progress and supervision (including pace, direction, quality, and support). Additionally, it addresses personal and academic development, and future career plans. It is a key opportunity for the PhD candidate to assess their scientific and personal growth alongside yearly project goals. The PhD candidate takes the lead as the meeting focuses on their future. While scientific progress is crucial for a successful thesis, the candidate may also introduce other topics. The focus of the meeting may shift during the PhD, with career planning gaining importance in later years.

All types of PhD candidates must have annual PhD progress meetings because monitoring progress throughout their PhD is crucial. PhD candidates with employee status also have an annual assessment interview as required by their institute. It is recommended that these candidates combine both meetings. Note that the form and explanatory notes for the annual PhD progress report differ from those for the annual assessment interview. However, the annual PhD progress report form can often be used and uploaded in the HRM system.

• Annual PhD progress report (docx)
• Annual PhD progress report - Accompanying explanatory notes (pdf)
• Self-assessment tool

The graph below shows how you can arrange the annual PhD progress meeting.

The annual PhD progress meeting can have different formats. Below you can find the two most common formats. Contact your PhD programme to ask if a specific meeting format is required.

Utrecht University Heidelberglaan 8 3584 CS Utrecht The Netherlands Tel. +31 (0)30 253 35 50

University of St Andrews

Mms documentation.

• Module Evaluation
• Misconduct Alerts
• Auditing PGR
• MMS Academic Alerts
• Postgraduate administration
• PGR-Supervision Groups
• Staff Project Meeting Log Guide
• MMS and Teams
• CLA Material
• MMS Student Guides

Annual Reviewer Progress Report

Introduction.

Each year a review should take place for each PGR student in a school. This review should be informed by the Student and Supervisor annual progress reviews for that student. The Reviewer Progress Report is used to highlight and record any issues that students may undergo within their PhD and ensures that university regulations are adhered to. As with the Examining Committee Nomination form relevant PGR forms can be generated in the RESEARCH module in MMS for your unit. Tailored reports for each student can be accessed on the 'Annual Progress Reports' tab in the 'Postgraduate administration tool'. Each unit will have an associated research module. Reports can be created by supervisors however the reports can only be submitted to registry by the Head of School or the Director of Postgraduate Studies.

• Creating a Report

Question Guidance

• Reviewer Report Submission

Notifications

Please consult the Policy on Progress Reviews for Postgraduate Research Students and the associated Guidance for Schools, Supervisors, Reviewers and Students policy for guidance, or for technical help and assistance please email the ITS service desk, including ‘Reviewer Report’ in the subject line, at [email protected] or download GUIDE - PGR Reviewer Report (PDF, 735 KB) .

Creating a Reviewer Progress Report

To create a Reviewer Progress Report, the Reviewer will have to be assigned to the students Supervision Group. For more information see: PGR Supervision Groups .

Once a reviewer has been added to a supervision group they will be able to create a review for the student corresponding with that supervision group. Reviewer progress reports are created on the ‘Annual Progress Reports’ tab which can be accessed by clicking the ‘Postgraduate Administration’ link in the RESEARCH module, as shown in Figure 1 . The drop-down list at the top of the page can be used to filter the table if the user has a module or unit level role. Existing reports will appear in the ‘Previous Reviews’ column.

Figure 1 : Link to Postgraduate Administration tool and Reviewer Report overview

Click on the ‘New Review’ link in the row associated with the reviewee to generate a new Reviewers progress report. The top section will be automatically populated with details about the student, the supervision and review teams.

The Reviewer progress report is comprised of eight questions. Questions one through seven are compulsory, as indicated by the pale red border. Once a form has been saved, questions that have been completed will update to have a green border, and questions for which answers are still required will be bordered in bright red. All borders must be green before a form can be submitted.

Question 1 relates to how often the student was in contact with the supervisory team, please select the answer from the drop-down list provided.

Question 2 asks about the suitability of the supervision, use the radio buttons next to the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ options. The text box should be used to provide further information.

Question 3 asks about the ethics approval and if this has been received. To answer select the radio button to the right of the possible options.

• ‘Yes, approval received or in progress’ should be selected if ethical approval is required and is in hand
• ‘Yes, action needed to obtain proper approvals’ should be selected if ethical approval is required and action needs to happen to achieve approval.
• ‘Unsure, further investigation needed’ should be selected if the reviewer is unsure if ethics approval is needed.
• ‘No’ should be selected if ethics approval is not needed.

Question 4 relates to the likelihood of the student completing within the allocated period of study. Select ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Unclear’ using the radio boxes to the right of the options. The text box should be used to provide details of the progress so far and to highlight any concerns.

Question 5 should be answered in the text box provided. The answer should cover

• if the student and supervisory team have considered the students training needs;
• if the student and supervisory team have considered the students career development needs;
• if both the training and career development needs are being met, or what actions should be taken to enhance training and career development;
• whether or not the reviewer has concerns regarding the balance between research and non-research commitments and how these concerns might be addressed.

Question 6 relates to communications the reviewer has had with the student relating the any issues the student has that are effecting their studies. Either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ should be selected using the radio buttons to the right of the options. If the student has indicated any issues, then the reviewer should note these and along with details of any advice given by the reviewers (e.g. speak to the DoPG, make contact with Student Services, seek out further training or language support, etc).

Question 7 asks the reviewer to classify the student’s progress using the St Andrews 4 tier assessment criteria, occasionally referred to as ‘traffic lights’ or ‘review outcome codes’, which is comprised of green for ‘satisfactory’, yellow for ‘minor concerns’, amber for ‘major concerns’ and red for ‘unsatisfactory’. The reviewers should select the classification by selecting the radio button to the right of the option. The text box should then be used to give reasons for this classification. More information on these can be found in the Progress Reviews for Postgraduate Research Students (PDF, 522 KB) .

Question 8 asks about any additional school level requirements and should be answered using the text box provided. This space allows reviewers to report on any School level requirements, such as particular taught components or presentations which the School requires of PGR Students. It may be left blank if there are no such requirements for the School.

The Reviewer progress report may be saved at any stage, using the ‘Save’ button at the bottom of the report. Once saved the user can navigate away and will be able to access the report again from the ‘New Review’ column on the ‘Annual Progress Reports’ tab. A PDF of the report can also be downloaded using the ‘Download PDF preview’ icon in the top right of the report.

Report submission

Once the report is ready for submission to the DoPG the reviewer should save and check the PDF preview to ensure the accuracy of the review. Once the reviewer is happy to submit the report they should click the ‘Submit Review’ button (or ‘Resubmit Review’ button if the review has been returned) at the bottom of the report. This will auto-save the report, change the report status to ‘submitted’ and ping the DoPG to inform them that the report is ready. The report will only be submitted if all the required fields have been completed, any that are uncompleted will appear highlighted in red.

If the user does not have permission to accept the report, the report will be frozen and no further edits can be made. The reviewer can then use the ‘Module Overview’ icon at the top or bottom of the page to return to the RESEARCH module.

If the user does have the permission to accept the report, once the report has been submitted then the majority of the form will be frozen to further edits however the buttons at the bottom of the report will change ‘Accept Review’ and ‘Return to Reviewer’.

At various stages in the Progress Review cycle, MMS will email out notifications to users. The following table outlines when notifications will be sent to users:

* To reduce the numbers of emails, these emails are in the form of a daily digest, containing all Progress Report updates relevant for the user.

Report acceptance or return

Once a Reviewer Progress Report has been submitted, it can still be found in the ‘New Review’ column on the ‘Annual Progress Reports’ tab. Any user who can approve the PR, usually the DoPG, will also have received a link via email once the report is ready for approval.

Note: Only users who have permission to accept a review will be able to accept or return the review and neither the supervisor(s) or the student will be able to view the review until it has been accepted.

The DoPG should open the report by clicking on the ‘Submitted’ link. Once the report has been checked, the DoPG can approve the report by clicking the ‘Accept Review’ button at the bottom of the report. At this point the report will become visible to the student and to the supervision team.

If the user is not happy to approve the report, then the ‘Return to Reviewer’ button should be clicked. This will generate a new field at the bottom of the report for information for the reviewers. To save this information and to return the report, click the ‘Return to Reviewer’ button again. This will ping all members of the Review team, asking them to make the necessary changes. The report will then become editable again and can be submitted again at a later date. There is no limit to how often the Reviewers Progress Report can be returned and re-submitted.

• 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.

A Pocket Guide to First Year Annual Review

Annual reviews are deemed important points of progression during the PhD journey.  

In addition to being a progression review, the annual review helps to support students to successfully conti nue and complete their PhD journey.  F or first – year PhD students, annual reviews may be considered one of the most important points in their year, more so  than   subsequent  annual reviews.  They   are   one of the two major points of  review  for a first – year  doctoral candidate , the first being 10-week report.  Possible outcomes  of the review  mainly include:   (1) confirmation of registration for PhD and progression to year 2 ,  (2)   repeating the review   within  3 months ,  or (3)   registration to a different  programme  like an  MScR  or  discontinuation  of registration entirely.  

With  Annual Review frenzy right around the corner  and most first – year PhD students  eagerly  waiting for their  assessments , here is a pocket guide to  ‘ survive ’  the first-year annual review.   

1. Keep the timeline of your review in mind- 

Annual reviews  typically occur  between 9 to 12 months of the   programme  starting date. Hence, it is advisable to keep in mind the timeline for the first year and plan accordingly.   

2. Follow the proper procedure of the Annual Review- 

Each subject area within the School might have slightly different procedures when it comes to conducting the annual review ; h owever,  it generally consists of finalizing the date of the review, filling out a form on EUCLID (in the Student Record section in  MyEd ), submitting a paper before the said date ,  and   giving  a short presentation on the day of the review  (although not required, but most reviews involve some form of presentation) .   

  For more details about the procedure of the Annual Review, please visit: https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/copsupervisorsresearchstudents.pdf  

3. Ensure open channels of communication with the supervisors- 

All PhD students are , at a minimum, allotted  two supervisors — both  a primary and secondary super visor or co-supervisors . The supervisory team  is  one of the most important support structures throughout   one’s  PhD   progression . It is imperative (and  cannot be stressed enough) to  maintain  honest and open communication with  one’ s supervisory team  at all times . If you are facing a ny  problem or  feeling overwhelmed, they should be the first people to know about it.   

I think you can’t help but compare yourself to other PGRs, but it is really important to remember that every supervisor and critical friend has different expectations and preferences.  Definitely talk  to your supervisory t eam and your critical friend about how to organize the review process! For some it might be more formal, but my Annual Review was very ca sual and more of a conversation with colleagues.     -Anonymous  1

4. Maintain consistency-

Now, we all know that we never end our PhD’s with the same research topic that we start with, rather, it is a whole process of evolution and deliberation of thoughts and ideas. However, in cases where we wish to make a radical change from one research interest to another, it is  advisable to consult  o n e ’ s supervisory team  before doing so  because ,  in some cases, they might not specialize in the changed/ suggested research topic  or they would want to include other supervisors on the team to better assist with the new research topic ; thus,  it ’s  always best to keep them in the loop.   

I was very surprised, and pleased, when by the time I had to present my annual review, I realized my project had slightly changed from what I initially proposed. This process was a bit scary, but my supervisors told me that it was natural and even expected to have a change in thoughts during the whole process of the PhD. The first year wasn’t an exception, as they expected refinement of the project and a more critical development of it. In my case the core topic was the same, but the intricacies of it and the methodology is what changed.   -Anonymous 2

5. Critical Friend-

As  part of the annual review process, each PhD student gets a  ‘ critical friend ’ allotted to their research . The Critical Friend will be involved with the supervision team in reviewing the annual  progress and  might offer occasional advice to the student  regarding the project during the following years. One of the most important roles of the critical friend is to provide feedback following the first-year annual review and  subsequent annual reviews.  The critical friend is someone the student can speak with if they are facing difficulties in supervision that they would like support with.   

In my particular case, having a critical friend provided a sense of stress as you are showing your project to an external person for the first time, but also, when I knew her expertise in both the topic and the methodology, I felt relieved as I knew her feedback was going to make my project more rigorous and rich.   -Anonymous 2 

6. Keep in constant touch with the PGR community- 

The PhD journey can  become quite isolated, especially when  o n e’s  colleagues   are also  consumed by their own research projects ;  however, it is important, especially   during unpre c e dented  uncertain times ,  to  consistently interact  with other PhD students to know that you are most definitely not alone! The school   has appointed ‘PGR Reps’ who are designated to address concerns of the rest of the PGR community — while they cannot actively help your concerns or change your situation, they can definitely provide a  signpost  in the right direction.   

I did a peer-presentation for my 1st year review and attended a couple. The PhD students who had been through the process gave some feedback and asked a few questions. I asked some people to read my first-year review draft, give me their comments and I also asked a couple of them to share their first-year review documents.   -Anonymous 3   One of the best advices I got from my peers and supervisors was to write small pieces of thoughts, paper summaries and rationales for decision making processes since the very beginning of my PhD as this would be material you can always refer to when you present your annual review. It will give structure to your thoughts and will bring more material to your PhD. Keeping a journal of your activities and small pieces of writing is a good practice whilst doing a PhD. – Anonymous 2

7. Be realistic in your approach-  

While it is easy to get carried away with your project — because let’s be real, it is our baby in the making — it is  essential to be realistic.  Keeping in mind both p roject feasibility  and situational circumstances  is important . It is highly important to be pragmatic about  timelines  and ,   if you tend to get overwhelmed, do not hesitate to apply for extensions and  special   circumstances .  The school provides  a lot of resources for the same.   

When I was in my first year, my supervisors asked m e  how many PhDs I  was  in tending to do. You probably can’t change the  whole  world with your project, but you can do it in a way that it changes you  – use your PhD to learn new skills and to challenge yourself ! I had to learn that a well-designed project about a small topic area is better than a big superficial project.    -Anonymous  1

8. Maintain a healthy work-life balance-  

All work and no play  makes  Jack a dull boy! Getting a PhD is a long  journey; hence, it is highly important to maintain a life outside your PhD and research.  Indulging in other activities and hobbies will not only  relax you but also help instill some transferable skills which can prove to be important both for personal and professional development. So, it is imperative for you to have a life outside the office, something which doesn’t involv e your research and help you unwind.   

Very often you hear stories (I know I did) that most of the first annual review ends up being your first chapter, but this puts a lot of pressure to produce something that is ‘PhD Thesis’ quality.  The reality is that PhDs are dynamic, literature is dynamic, so there is no way you can just copy paste your 1st annual review in your first chapter 3 years later, and that’s ok. Don’t see your annual review as a PhD chapter. See it as a work in progress!   -Anonymous   4

Remember, the above list is  quite  explorative ,  and there is no ‘One Size Fits All’ formula. The University   has an  Advice Place   ( https://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/support_and_advice/the_advice_place/ ) to  help students address   both  academic and non-academic concerns. While e veryone has  different  plans of action or support  which might work for them , this small list of simple  ‘ do’s and don’t s ’  might come in handy for those who are going to appear for their annual review in the coming months.  Although the first year review may seem quite daunting and stressful, it acts as an important reality check for the students to plan out the subsequent years; getting feedback from both the supervisory team and the critical friend,  proves quite useful for the rest of the years to come.   

To   learn  more about the Annual Review Process, please click on the link below  (EASE Login Required) : https://www.learn.ed.ac.uk/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_17186_1&content_id=_617596_1    

One comment

Many thanx for sharing this!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and site URL in my browser for next time I post a comment.

HTML Text A Pocket Guide to First Year Annual Review / Research Bow by blogadmin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0

Plain text A Pocket Guide to First Year Annual Review by blogadmin @ is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner .

Annual Progress Report

On commencement of Independent Work (e.g. Doctoral Thesis), students are required to submit progress reports on an annual basis until they have submitted the final version of their Independent Work for oral examination and completed any other academic requirements.

Student concerned are required to submit the assessment form (SGS62), together with cover sheet with details of the composition of qualifying panel members from “AIMS” and required copies of Annual Progress Report to their supervisor on or before 31 August of each year for assessment.

To obtain the cover sheet and assessment form (SGS62), students are required to Log onto CityUHK  “e-Portal” → Select “AIMS” → Go to “Student Record” tab and choose “ My Study Details (for Professional Doctorate Programmes)” . Click here to obtain the " User Guide on how to obtain the cover sheet and blank assessment form via AIMS "

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

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

Hope over hunger: the formula to happiness, according to happiness coach Dr. Obayuwana

by Sophia Bruinsma

This year, the United States hit an all-time low ranking in the annual happiness report, moving down 8 spots from 15th to 23rd. This is the first time since this report launched 12 years ago that the US did not rank among the top 20 countries.

Studies from the Pew Research Center find that Americans are feeling down about issues ranging from loneliness, the economy, and politics.

Dr. Alphonsus Obayuwana, MD, PHD, is a physician and happiness coach, CEO of the Triple H Project USA, and a retired Major in the US air Force. He has dedicated years of his professional career to studying human happiness. He gave insight on his tups to become happier, pointing to an equation he believes helps measure where a person stands on their current happiness level which he defines as "hope over hunger". He says having an abundance of hope, and not much hunger is the key to happiness. There are some stark differences between the two words Hope and Hunger according to Dr. Obayuwana. He describes hope as the feeling that one's desires are achievable, while hunger are the compelling desires.

Dr. Obayuwana identifies five human compelling desires: acknowledgement and inclusion, intimacy and trusted companionship, food and comfort, information and answers, and continuity and certainty. He explains that humans are born unhappy, providing examples of a baby crying, wanting to be noticed and included, and how they continue throughout life. He says they must gain happiness by reducing their hungers, which are compelling desires.

A daily routine that he highlights to increase happiness includes the following:

• Increasing hope and decreasing hunger
• Finding one's calling
• Thinking of others
• Counting blessings
• Being curious
• Practicing spirituality

He mentions that religious experiences can provide a sense of continuity and certainty, contributing to happiness.

Dr. Obayuwana explains that it is also very important to be aware of your current level of happiness, and suggests setting goals can help increase hope, as well as expanding one's circles of well-wishers.

If you are interested in learning more, you can look into Dr Obayuwana's book "The Happiness Formula: A Scientific, Groundbreaking Approach to Happiness and Personal Fulfillment" available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and other bookstores.

Content Search

World + 9 more

Project HOPE 2023 Annual Report

Attachments.

The Hope We Share

Marking 65 years of impact.

In the past year, we have witnessed the far-reaching consequences of inadequate access to health care and a devastating list of crises.

Stark increases in migration and displacement. Catastrophic earthquakes in Türkiye, Syria, and Morocco. Heart-wrenching violence in Sudan, Haiti, Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza. The continued impacts of a dangerous health worker shortage.

In the face of such serious challenges, we remain committed to meeting the most urgent needs while building long-term solutions that transform the health of our global communities.

2023 was also a year of tremendous courage and global action. Despite the unprecedented risks humanitarians face, Project HOPE responded swiftly to deliver emergency relief, mental health services, maternal and newborn care, and vital support to health workers worldwide. This required a unified effort across our organization and with our partners and donors, all of whom are dedicated to ensuring access to compassionate medical care in the face of adversity.

Last year also marked Project HOPE’s 65th anniversary, a milestone that reinforces our long commitment to transforming global health since our founding in 1958. Though the threats have never been more serious, our commitment remains steadfast: to ensure equitable access to health care for everyone, everywhere.

Related Content

Syrian arab republic: 2024 humanitarian needs overview (february 2024).

Sudan + 19 more

IRC 2024 Emergency Watchlist

Türkiye + 1 more

Humanitarian Transition Overview - Türkiye Earthquake Response (August 2023)

The worldriskreport 2024 - focus: multiple crises.