1
Annual Review of Research Degree Programmes: School Report2016-17
Schools are encouraged to submit concise reports focusing on the main issues; risks and ongoing/planned actions; good practice and plans for dissemination when completing this report.
Section One: Overview of Programmes
School:
Research Degree Programmes:
List all the Research Degree Programmes(RDPs) offered within the School e.g. PhD, MPhil, MD, and ProfessionalDoctorates (by title).
RDP / Programmeco-ordinator / Professional Body
(if applicable)
Section Two: Student Body Profile
Profile (number) of studentsregistered during the 2016-17 academic year, by RDP and FTE year on programme(Data will be provided by Academic Affairs in November):
RDP / Year on Prog / Male / Female / FT / PT / Thesis Only / Grad Only / TotalTotal
Analysis: Percentage of total students registered during the 2016-17 academic year, by FTE year on programme and RDP(Data will be provided by Academic Affairs in November):
RDP / Within normal period of study / In max period of study (includes thesis only) / Beyond max period of study / Grad OnlyFT / PT / FT / PT / TO / FT / PT / GO
Data should be adjusted for periods of temporary withdrawal or changes in mode of study throughout a student’s registration on programme.
Evaluation and Action
Evaluate the student body registered during 2016-17, in particular focusing on the highlighted cells where students appear to be beyond the maximum period of study/year on programme, and outline actions to be/taken to effectively manage these students.
Evaluation and Action:Profile (number) of registered students with a disclosed disability, by RDP:
RDP / Specific learning difficulties / Visual/ hearing impairment / Mobility impairment / Mental health / Autistic spectrum/ Asperger’s Syndrome / Medical conditions / OtherTotal
Profile (number) of applications, offers made, and entrants; and conversion ratesfor 2016-17, by residency and RDP:
RDP / Applications / Offers Made / Entrants / Offers Made/ Applications conversion rate / Entrants/ Offers Made conversion rateHM / EU / OS / HM / EU / OS / HM / EU / OS / HM / EU / OS / HM / EU / OS
Total
Profile (number) of applications, offers made, and entrants; and conversion rates for 2016-17, by gender and RDP:
RDP / Applications / Offers Made / Entrants / Offers Made/ Applications conversion rate / Entrants/ Offers Made conversion rateMale / Female / Male / Female / Male / Female / Male / Female / Male / Female
Total
Profile (number) of applications, offers made, and entrants; and conversion rates for 2016-17, by mode of study and RDP:
RDP / Applications / Offers Made / Entrants / Offers Made/ Applications conversion rate / Entrants/ Offers Made conversion ratePT / FT / PT / FT / PT / FT / PT / FT / PT / FT
Total
Profile (number and percentage of total) of funding sources for new entrants for 2016-17, by RDP:
RDP / DEL Studentship / Research Council / Other Sponsorship / SelfFunded / Total
Number
# / % / # / % / # / % / # / %
Total
Profile (number and percentage of total) of principal supervisors per number of FTE supervisees, by RDP:
RDP / Number of FTE Student Supervisees0* / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 6+ (specify)
# / % / # / % / # / % / # / % / # / % / # / % / # / % / # / %
Total
* relates to eligible principal supervisors with no current principal supervisory responsibilities.
Supervision Arrangements
Outline the model(s) of supervision employed in the School, including any co-supervision arrangements, and reasons for this approach.
Evaluation and Action
Evaluatethe disability, recruitment and supervision data, highlighting the main issues;risks and actions for the School/Faculty/University; good practice and planned dissemination. The evaluation should include reference to KPI 29 – PGR Student Recruitment.
Evaluation and Action:Update on action taken in response to 2015-16review feedback/School Action Plan:
Section Three: Achievement of Standards
Progression, Withdrawal and Transfer: Number of students in 2016-17,by RDP and FTE year on programme:
RDP / Year on Prog / Progressing* / TemporaryWithdrawal / Permanent
Withdrawal / Transfer
in / Transfer out
# / % of total in year
Total
*This includes students who have been granted additional time to attempt to improve their performance, but have not been asked to withdraw at present.
Analysis: Number and percentage of temporarily withdrawn students in each period of study in 2016-17, by RDP:
Temporary WithdrawalsRDP / Within Normal Period / Within Maximum Period / Beyond Maximum Period / Total Number
# / % / # / % / # / %
Total
Differentiation: NumberofPhD students who differentiated in 2016-17, within FTE years on programme:
Year on Programme (FTE)RDP / Within 1 year / > 1 year (specify) / Failed differentiation / Total Number
PhD
Total
Submission: Number ofthesis first submissions in 2016-17, within FTE years on programme, by RDP:
FTE Year on ProgrammeRDP / 1 year / 2 years / 3 years / 4 years / 5 years / 6+ years
(specify) / Total Number
Total
NB: Master’s submissions (MPhil/MCh) should only include those theses which were submitted for a Master’s degree, and not Doctorate submissions which did not pass at the Doctoral level.
Completion: Number oftheses accepted for awardin 2016-17, within FTE years on programme, by RDP:
FTE Year on ProgrammeRDP / 1 year / 2 years / 3 years / 4 years / 5 years / 6+ years
(specify) / Total Number
Total
Pass, Referral and Fail: Number and percentage of students in 2016-17,by RDP:
Outcome of ExaminationRDP / Pass(with/out minor corrections/
revisions) / Revise and resubmit (for registered award) / Alternative award (for Doctoral candidates) / Fail / Total Number
Total
Analysis: Achievement Rates Summary Data
RDP / Differentiation Rate / Submission Rate / Completion Rate / Pass RateDifferentiation Rate target – 100% of PhD students to complete a first attempt at differentiation within one year (FTE), with a threshold of 80% to differentiate successfully within one year (FTE).
Submission Rate threshold – 80% of students to submit their thesis within the maximum period of study for the RDP – e.g. four years for full-time PhD students.
Completion Rate threshold – 85% of students to complete the RDP successfully within the maximum period of study plus one year (FTE) – e.g. five years for full-time PhD students.
Pass Rate threshold – 85% of students to successfully pass the oral examination (with or without minor corrections/revisions) at the first attempt.
Evaluation and Action
Evaluate ‘Section Three: Achievement of Standards’ information, highlighting relevant trends, themes, or issues; appropriate actions for the School/Faculty/University; and updates on actions taken in response to feedback from the 2015-16annual review process.
Evaluation and Action:Update on action taken in response to 2015-16review feedback/School Action Plan:
Section Four: Stakeholder Evaluations
Theme: School Engagement with the Graduate School
Summary to include: student feedback to School on development opportunities; student involvement in postgraduate-led initiatives, poster competitions; School promotion of postgraduate training and development; School facilitation of events and activities within the Graduate School programme.
Summary of School Engagement with the Graduate School:Student andGraduate/Alumni Evaluations:
Overview of feedback from students (as individuals and collectively via SSCC etc) in relation to their RDP, and the overall student experience within the School and the wider University
Postgraduate Research Experience Survey:
PRES Categories / 2017 / 2015% / %
Supervision
Resources
Research Culture
Progress and Assessment
Responsibilities
Research Skills
Professional Development
Teaching Opportunities
Overall
2017 Survey Response Rate (%) / Number of Respondents (#)
Summary of Other StudentFeedback:
Summary of Graduate/Alumni Feedback:
Evaluation and Action (Include how you have communicated/plan to communicate to your PGR students regarding actions taken as a result of feedback):
Update on action taken in response to 2015-16review feedback/School Action Plan:
Appeals and Complaints
FSRAC appeals profile, by RDP(Data provided by Academic Affairs):
RDP / Reasons for appeal / Upheld (Y/N) / Outcome/ Actions for upheld appealTotal:
CSRAC appeals profile, by RDP(Data provided by Academic Affairs):
RDP / Reasons for appeal / Upheld (Y/N) / Outcome/ Actions for upheld appealTotal:
Informal complaints profile, by RDP(Resolved at School-level):
RDP / Reasons for complaint / Upheld (Y/N) / Outcome/ Actions for upheld complaintTotal:
Formal complaints profile, by RDP(Resolved via the Student Complaints Procedure, data provided by Academic Affairs):
RDP / Reasons for complaint / Upheld (Y/N) / Outcome/ Actions for upheld complaintTotal:
Appeals and Complaints Evaluation and Action:
Staff Evaluations:
Overview of feedback from staff, including supervisors, Annual Progress Review panels, School Postgraduate Research Committee members, internal examiners, and research administrators, in relation to the management of RDPs.
Summary of Staff Feedback:Evaluation and Action:
Update on action taken in response to 2015-16review feedback/School Action Plan:
External Examiner Evaluations:
Overview of feedback from external examiners (Data provided via Academic Affairs)
Evaluate the examples below, including any feedback gathered at the School level.
External ExaminerFeedback(mostly submitted anonymously, so circulated to all Schools):Examples of Good Practice Feedback
(i)We are content with the examination process at QUB. The viva was well organised and the preliminary contacts with the external and internal examiners where appropriate and efficiently carried out.
(ii)The viva examination and quality assurance process were well suited to the task and commensurate with practices at other HE Institutions...
(iii)Quality Assurance was excellent! Full integrity and visibility and professionalism.
(iv)External examiner was extremely pleased with the arrangements for the examination. Good use of joint independent initial reports, and chair of the examination committee is a good idea to overview process.
(v)I was impressed with the overall process and the ability to react swiftly to the internal examiners inability to attend the viva.
(vi)Allowing the candidate to make a short presentation at the start of the viva was a good idea, which seemed to put the candidate at ease.
Examples of Concerns
(i)More clear instructions on procedure after oral exam - address of School office for mailing this paperwork etc.
Response: Schools should ensure that examiners know how to return completed reports.
(ii)It would have been easier if the Examiner's Report Forms were electronic so that the reports could have been typed directly onto the forms./ It would be useful if all examination forms could be sent electronically for electronic completion, including the fees form. Hand-written forms today are simply silly./ Downloadable reports for examiners would be useful.
Response from Student Services and Systems (edited by AA): Electronic versions (RTF) of the examination reports are available on request from Student Registry. This is detailed on the cover letter to examiners sent out with the thesis. The provision of electronic versions is a manual process and due to the nature and design of the reports can be extremely time consuming. It was therefore agreed that we could not dispatch electronic examiner reports to all examiners upon appointment/dispatch of the student thesis without significantly impacting our normal business processes and causing unnecessary delays to the examination process. Over the last academic year, we have issued electronic copies to examiners for approximately one third of thesis submissions.
(iii)In general a talk should be an integral part of viva.
Response: The Postgraduate Research Academic Review Group recommended that all Schools encourage students to commence the oral examination with a brief presentation on their research in order to provide an opportunity to introduce the main elements of their work and settle into the examination (RPC/P/17/16).
(iv)Please note that the external and internal examiners received different versions of the examiners report form. The external examiner received versions which excluded the word 'minor' in b+ c of the possible examiner decisions. This may have had an effect on the initial choice of decision prior to the viva.
Response from Student Services and Systems: The correct reports were issued to the examiners from Student Registry and the incorrect version given to the internal examiner by the School. Schools are advised that they should not be holding or amending copies of examination reports, that each one is generated specifically for the individual student/submission concerned, and that Student Registry can provide a copy on request.
(v)It may have been beneficial to have received the thesis a little earlier than 2 weeks prior to the viva. / The only suggestion I would make is to increase the amount of time examiners have to read the dissertation, say to eight weeks…
Response: The examiner appointment letter states that a period of 6 weeks is normally given to read and examine the thesis. Theses are posted to examiners when the student has submitted it for examination, and the School arranges a suitable date with all stakeholders for the oral examination.
Evaluation and Action:
Update on action taken in response to 2015-16 review feedback/School Action Plan:
EmployerEvaluations:
Overview of feedback from employers.
Summary of EmployerFeedback:Evaluation and Action:
Update on action taken in response to 2015-16 review feedback/School Action Plan:
Employment Destinations: Profile of employment status of 2015-16 graduates, by RDP: (DHLE data provided by Careers, Employability & Skills)
RDP / Further Study / Graduate Employment / Non-graduateEmployment / Other / Unemployed / Total (of available data)
# / % / # / % / # / % / # / % / # / %
Total
Employment DestinationsEvaluation and Action:
Funderand Sponsor Evaluations:
Overview of feedback from funders and sponsors.
Summary of FunderFeedback:Summary of SponsorFeedback:
Evaluation and Action:
Update on action taken in responseto 2015-16review feedback/School Action Plan:
Section Five: Summary
Summary of the School’s overall view regarding the delivery of Research Degree Programmes over the 2016-17 academic year:Examples of good practice:
Specific challenges not already indicated:
Section Six: Action Plan
Evaluation of Action Plan for 2016-17:
Evaluate the actions taken and any other changes to the delivery of the RDPs which have occurred during the last year. Evaluate the impact of these changes, indicating whether they have led to enhancement of the management/delivery of the RDP or the quality of learning opportunities, or improved the achievement of standards by the students.
Action Taken / Evaluation of Actions / Impact of Actions TakenAction Plan for 2017-18:
Review section / Action / Person responsible / Monitored/reported by / Deadline for completion
Section Seven: Approval of School Report
Annual Review of RDPs completed by(Chair of RDP Review Group): / Date:Approved by (Head of School): / Date: