edShare@GCU

McArthur, David

edShare@GCU (Glasgow Caledonian University)

PSA&P Wk1_vid2

Referencing and using RefWorks.

Interview with Melanie and Prof Cam Donaldson Re mentoring role advic

Cartwright, Amy

Armstrong, Melanie

Mentoring in the Research Environment - Qualities of an effective mentor

SharePoint Video - Planning your Site

Sweeney, Laura

Glaucoma Structure and Function

Coleman, Tony

Measurement - Windows and Doors

		Revised May2015



HIGHER DEGREES COMMITTEE 
    
 Form RDC 2
APPLICATION FOR CONFIRMATION OF PROGRESSION TO DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Purpose of the RDC2 stage:  Confirmation of Progression to Doctoral Level
All research students must undertake a Progression Review to show that they have made satisfactory progress and to clearly demonstrate their ability to pursue study to doctoral level. Students are required to prepare a full progress report for the supervisors and relevant Committee members.

Student Information (To be completed by the student and the Director of Studies)

Full Name		
Matriculation Number		
Matriculation Date		
School		
Mode of Attendance	                                           Part-time              Full-time	                                                          Delete as Applicable	                                 



Section 1 General (To be completed by the student and the Director of Studies)

Collaborating establishment, if any			
Title of research programme					
Matriculation date                   			
Date of approval of RDC 1			
Expected date of completion	                   			







Section 2 Supervisors (To be completed by the Supervisory Team)

Director of Studies		
Second Supervisor		
Third Supervisor		
Note any change to the team from the RDC 1       		Yes/No    Delete as Applicable	If yes append a RDC 4 Form  


Supervisors Training Record

New Supervisors with no completions must attend the series of four half-day workshops entitled How to be an Effective Supervisor prior to submission of this form.

Experienced supervisors (1 or more completions) must ensure that they attend a minimum of 1 refresher training session every 2 years. Experienced supervisors can attend any refresher workshop session from the supervisor training courses listed on the Graduate School website: www.gcu.ac.uk/workshops/supervisors/


Have all supervisors completed the Supervisor Training Workshop(s)?		Yes/No    Delete as Applicable		If No please provide further details below:								




Section 3 Report by Supervisors (To be completed by the Supervisory Team)

On the candidate's progress within their project				
On the candidate's progress with the programme of related studies:  Please attach the candidate’s updated Personal Development Plan and Record and comment on progress to date and future plans							
Has the student received the required minimum number of supervision sessions, normally 12 per year for full time students and 6 per year for part time students?									
Ethics -   Are there any additional or outstanding ethical implications?   If yes full details should be provided.  (Please note that approval of the project by the University Ethics Committee and/or External Ethical Committees may be required).  If ethical approval had not been given at the date of the RDC1 submission, please state here the date and details of ethical approval.  Please state here the status of any applications for additional or continuing ethical approval. Have any ethical issues been addressed/resolved during the viva?										

 

Section 4 Summary of Progress (To be completed by the student and the Supervisory Team)
The Candidate is required to submit the full progression report for approval by the candidate’s School.  Regulation 6 refers, – particularly, 6.2: The progression report should normally be from 6,000 to 8,000 words (max) in length. The list of required components is shown below.
	
I declare that the work contained in the attached report/abstract is my own 

Signed by Candidate				Dated			


We support this application

Signed by Director of Studies				Dated		
Signed by 2nd Supervisor				Dated		
Signed by 3rd Supervisor				Dated		


Progression Report Components
The progression report (6,000-8,000 words) should include:
Abstract* (please insert also below) 
Table of Contents
Introduction
Literature Review
Research Aim and Research Objectives
Methodology and Methods including Ethical Considerations
Data Collection and Preliminary Results (if applicable)
Conclusions and Outline of Future Work (provide Timetable in Appendix)

 * The 500 word abstract below should accompany the form to the Higher Degrees Committee. 










Progression Report Abstract (max 500 words)	
																																												

Section 5a. Moderators’ Comments (To be completed by the Academic Moderators)

Signed by 1st Moderator (D.o.S. or Nominated Supervisor)		Print Name		Dated	
Signed by 2nd Moderator (not a member of Supervisory team)				Print Name		Dated	


The table below should be completed by the moderators based on: the written report; presentation; and viva exam performance.

First Year Progress Review Assessment Form (written report, presentation and viva exam)
Areas for Consideration	Brief Comments/Recommendations
ACADEMIC RIGOUR
Has this research the potential to make a new and original contribution to knowledge?		
Has the research question been clearly justified by the literature review?		
Is the research project grounded in relevant theory/theories?		
Is the proposed research design appropriate and justified? 	
Does the project show clear development from MPhil to PhD			
STUDENT PROGRESS AND RESEARCH CAPACITY
Does the student demonstrate an understanding of the proposed research and theoretical models?		
Does the student demonstrate the capacity to carry out the proposed project?		
Are there any concerns arising from the student’s module grades (Prof D students only)? 		
Is the written work to the academic standard expected?		
Is the Written/Spoken English language to the standard required at this stage?		
Please provide additional comments on the presentation and viva exam 						
FEASIBILITY
Is the project feasible within the available time and resources? 		
ETHICS
Does the project appear to be ethical?		
Have ethical issues been addressed/resolved?		



Section 5b. Moderators’ Feedback Received (To be completed by the Student)
Signed by Student  confirming feedback from Moderators after viva exam					Print Name		Dated	



Section 6a. Moderators’ Recommendations (To be completed by the Academic Moderators)

Students who are successful at their Progression Review have their status as PhD students confirmed (outcome 1). Those who are deemed unsuccessful have 3 possible outcomes at first attempt (2, 3 and 4 below). For outcome 2, they are given specific feedback on where they need to improve and are asked to return for a second attempt; if they are again unsuccessful they will be required to exit the PhD programme and either pursue an MPhil qualification (outcome 3) or withdraw from the programme of study (outcome 4).
Progression Review Decisions		Please select one of the decisions and provide comments
A recommendation by the School to the University that the student’s doctoral status is confirmed and the student can progress.						
A recommendation that the student is given the opportunity to re-submit the written report for the progression to PhD and normally within 4 weeks FT and 6 weeks PT from the date of the viva exam. 		*This is not an option if the application is a resubmission*		Please indicate if the student is required to: 	Re-submit the written report with amendments only + form	Re-submit the written report and re-sit viva exam and/or presentation + form		The resubmission must be made on a new RDC2 form and the box below checked to indicate the resubmission. 		
A recommendation by the School to the University that the student be registered as an MPhil student.						
A recommendation by the School to the University that the student's registration be terminated. This should be supported by evidence that the student has received documentation on lack of progress during the period of study.								



Section 6b. RDC2 Resubmission (To be completed by the School)

Is this form a Resubmission?	Yes/No    Delete as Applicable		



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

Section 7 Support by School
Approved by PGRT			Dated	


Research Administrator Check		Dated		
Approved by ADR			Dated	



Date Sent to Clerk of the HDC	
Date Approved by HDC               	


Checklist of materials to be submitted with the RDC2 form

Signed RDC2 form 					Yes/No
Any emails confirming approval in lieu of signatures		Yes/No
Progression Review Report				Yes/No
Personal Development Plan and Record			Yes/No





Page 0 of 8
Page 1 of 7


RDC2: Application for confirmation of progression to doctor of philosophy

The RDC7 form is completed by the Director of Studies; the School Associate Dean of Research (ADR) and Postgraduate Research Tutor (PGRT

		          vMar2015


HIGHER DEGREES COMMITTEE

Form RDC 7
	NOTIFICATION OF WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION



Section 1. Student Information

Full Name		
Matriculation Number		
School		



Section 2. Registration

Registered for 			MPhil       MPhil/PhD            PhD           Prof D       Delete as Applicable	
Matriculation Date			
Mode of study 	(Full-Time or Part-Time)			
Date of last attendance  				
Funding Type	(e.g. Self-funded, Studentship etc)		













Section 3. Reasons for Withdrawal of Registration

Please mark ‘Yes’ and any other details in the appropriate box


Academically unsatisfactory (at any stage of programme)				
 Significant change of project (against advice)					
 Lack of communication/loss of contact					
Medical reasons				
 Pressure of other commitments					
Other (please specify)					



Section 4. Approval by School


Approved by Director of Studies 			Dated	
Approved by PGRT					Dated	
Approved by ADR				Dated	



























Guidance on Withdrawal of Registration

Circumstances may occur where a decision is taken to withdraw a candidate’s registration for a research degree. 

This could occur as part of the RDC2 confirmation process where the decision is taken to withdraw registration based on unsatisfactory academic progress.

However, withdrawal can occur at any point in the programme through the submission of an RDC7 “Notification of withdrawal from a research programme” to the School and HDC.

Reasons for withdrawal under the RDC7 notification process include (but are not restricted to):

Academically unsatisfactory (at any stage of programme)
Significant change of project (against advice)
Lack of communication/loss of contact
Medical problems
Pressure of other commitments

There is an expectation that in the case of an RDC7 notification, the Director of Studies and other relevant school staff including the Associate Dean for Research have taken all reasonable measures to avoid withdrawal.

There should be appropriate documentary evidence to support the reason for withdrawal of registration (e.g. meeting templates, email correspondence).

There is an expectation that the candidate will be involved in the process where appropriate.

Withdrawals do not restrict candidates’ rights under the University’s Complaints Handling Procedure.

School Research Administrators need to inform Registry and withdraw the student on the ISIS system by completing a Notification of Student Withdrawal from Studies form.







Page 1 of 3


RDC7: Withdrawal from Programme of Study

PSA&P Wk6 vid2

Block Three draft only

Glasgow Caledonian University

Not a member yet