s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com · Web viewThe CIC HDR procedures are a companion document to the Graduate Research Candidature Management and Examination Procedures developed by

Higher Degree Research Procedures

UTS CRICOS PROVIDER CODE 00099F

Connected Intelligence Centre (CIC)

Contents1 Research Degrees at CIC 4

1.1 Introduction 41.2 About our HDR program 4

2 Governance 5

2.1 CIC Board of Studies 52.2 HDR Program management and delegation 52.3 Student representative 5

3 The application process 7

4 Candidature Stages 8

4.1 First Review of Progress 84.2 Stage 1 assessment: Confirmation of candidature 84.3 Stage 2 assessment: Confirmation of advanced progress 104.4 Stage 3 assessment: Confirmation of readiness to submit thesis for examination 114.5 Appeals 124.6 Extension of candidature 12

5 Graduate Research Study Plan 14

5.1 Fortnightly student meetings 14

6 Review of progress 15

7 Research Ethics 16

7.1 Research integrity training 16

8 Student employment 17

8.1 Paid employment while on a scholarship 178.2 Collaborative research projects 17

9 Thesis preparation and submission 18

9.1 Structure 189.2 Format 189.3 Thesis-related publications 199.4 Digital artefacts 199.5 Alternative thesis formats 19

Monday, 21 May 2018

Appendix A: Doctoral Study Plan Templates for stages 1-3 20

Appendix B: Review of Progress 23

Appendix C: Assessment report template for all stages (i.e. 1-3) 28

Abbreviations CIC Connected Intelligence Centre

EWS Expected Work Submission date: The final due date for a student to submit their thesis.

GRS Graduate Research School

GRSP Graduate Research Study Plan

HDR Higher degree research: this is a term used to include any research degrees after Honours. We use it because we have a research Masters and a Doctor of Philosophy degree, and it’s quicker to just say HDR to refer to both of them.

HREC UTS Human Research Ethics Committee PD Professional development RAO Responsible Academic OfficerTD Trans-disciplinary UTS University of Technology Sydney

Monday, 21 May 2018

1 Research Degrees at CIC

1.1 IntroductionThis document describes key procedures that govern the higher degree research (HDR) program at the Connected Intelligence Centre (CIC). All students, supervisors and program managers need to be aware of these procedures and should refer to them as needed.

The CIC HDR procedures are a companion document to the Graduate Research Candidature Management and Examination Procedures developed by the Graduate Research School Board (GRSB) at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). Where there is any inconsistency between the two documents, the UTS procedures take precedence. The CIC procedures clarify how particular processes work specifically at CIC. For anything not covered here, refer to the UTS procedures.

1.2 About our HDR programThe UTS Connected Intelligence Centre (CIC) operates as a creative incubator to catalyse thinking about the impact of data and algorithms on education, research, and society more broadly. Sitting in the portfolio of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education & Students), CIC works closely with all UTS Faculties and Student Support Units, through applied research, rapid software prototyping, theoretical and empirical evaluation, and education.

CIC’s primary mission is to maximise the benefits of analytics for UTS teaching and learning. The Learning Analytics Higher Degree Research Program is part of our strategy to cultivate transdisciplinary innovation to tackle challenges at UTS, through rigorous methodologies, arguments and evidence. A core focus is the personalisation of the learning experience, especially through improved feedback to learners and educators.

Topic-specific technical skills and academic grounding that you will need for your PhD are specified in the PhD project descriptions, but there are some common skills and dispositions that we are seeking, given the way that we work.

CIC is committed to multidisciplinarity, which we hope will become transdisciplinary as we build enough common ground for the disciplines to inform or even transform perspectives. Thinking outside your ‘home turf’ is not easy or comfortable, but we are seeking to help our HDR students develop an appetite to stretch themselves with new worldviews.

CIC is committed to user-centered participatory design of learning analytics tools, so you will need a passion for, and commitment to, working with non-technical users as you prototype new tools. We are seeking excellent interpersonal and communication skills in order to translate between the technical and educational worlds, and creative design thinking to help users engage with new kinds of tools. Ideally, you will already have had some design experience, but this can also be an area you want to learn.

Monday, 21 May 2018

2 Governance

2.1 CIC Board of StudiesThe Director of CIC is ultimately responsible for governance of the HDR program at CIC. UTS Academic Board established a Board of Studies for CIC in 2014, with purpose and functions equivalent to a Faculty Board under the Rules of the university. The Board of Studies advises the Director on academic matters and student-related issues in respect to CIC’s courses of study. The membership of the Board of Studies is as follows, with current members listed:

Director, CIC (Chair): Professor Simon Buckingham Shum

Deputy Chair: Professor Peter Scott

Responsible Academic Officer (RAO): Dr Kirsty Kitto

Faculty Representatives: Dr Philippa Ryan, Dr Simon Knight, Dr Saba Bebawi

IML Representative: Associate Professor Jo McKenzie

HDR Student Representative: Antonette Shibani

Senior Manager: Gabrielle Gardiner

Subject to the Rules and the resolutions of Council and Academic Board, including the strategic direction and priorities set for the university, the board will have a responsibility to assess the quality of, and provide direction to, the academic work of the centre, including teaching, learning, scholarship, research and research training. It typically meets two times per year.

2.2 HDR program management and delegation

The daily management and administration of the HDR program is delegated by the CIC Director, to the Director, HDR Program (currently Kirsty Kitto) and Deputy Director, HDR Program (currently Roberto Martinez-Maldonado). Many of the forms and processes associated with HDR progress require approval by a Responsible Academic Officer (RAO). CIC’s Responsible Academic Officer is currently Kirsty Kitto. The delegation chain in CIC if the RAO is not available, or there is a conflict with supervision, is listed below.

RAO approval needed – start here Director, HDR program (Kirsty Kitto)

If RAO is not available, or is primary supervisor of the relevant student

Deputy Director, HDR program (Roberto Martinez Maldonado)

If RAO and the Deputy Director, HDR Program are not available, or is primary supervisor of the relevant student

Director, CIC (Simon Buckingham Shum)

2.3 Student representativeEach year, one student is elected as a representative of the CIC student body to meet the following objectives:

To ensure students have a voice in decision-making about CIC’s HDR Program (through the CIC Board of Studies)

To ensure students have an opportunity to engage in CIC’s broader governance processes

To provide students with an alternative pathway to raise issues, concerns or positive feedback about the HDR Program.

The student representative:

Monday, 21 May 2018

Is a member of the CIC Board of Studies

Is expected to show leadership in supporting a strong community of scholars at CIC

Liaises with students as needed to communicate HDR Program decisions and collect student feedback.

The student representative is elected for one year but may run in consecutive years, although we encourage sharing around the role to provide more people with the experience.

Eligible UTS students will receive information about elections at their student.uts.edu.au email address before nominations open. Election information and nomination forms are available on the UTS Elections website (http://www.gsu.uts.edu.au/elections/index.html) during nomination and voting periods. The results of these elections will be published around two weeks after voting closes.

Monday, 21 May 2018

http://www.gsu.uts.edu.au/elections/index.html

3 The application processEnquiries about the CIC HDR program by potential international and domestic students are welcome throughout the year. Key steps are illustrated below.

Step Action Details

1. Potential applicant enquires The applicant is directed to the information for potential HDR students page on the CIC website (https://utscic.edu.au/research/phd/) and asked to develop a research proposal aligned with CIC interests and capabilities. The length and content requirements of the proposal are defined by the potential supervisor or supervisor team.

2. Applicant returns proposal and current CV

If the proposal is deemed satisfactory then the applicant is invited to discuss the proposal with CIC academics in an interview.

3. Application for pre-approval successful

Approval is made based on the quality of candidates, their proposal, the overall coherence of the team (candidate-supervisors), the potential contribution to UTS teaching and learning experience, and the research advances that will result. Evidence is to be taken from an applicant’s written application, face-to-face/video interview, multimedia research presentation at the interview, and/or references.

4. UTS Application process Successful applicants apply formally for HDR studies via the UTS system (along with formal documentation).

5. GRS sends official documentation to the student

GRS send the applicant the official UTS offer, enrolment and scholarship (if applicable) details via email.

6. Student returns the forms to GRS

Applicant signs and returns the offer, and provides all the information such as passport/visa requested to GRS by GRS deadline.

7. Student commences at CIC Student works with their supervisor to determine a start date and officially commences at CIC. Student is inducted into the program, by their supervisor(s).

Monday, 21 May 2018

https://utscic.edu.au/research/phd/

4 Candidature Stages

All HDR students are required to undertake an assessment of their candidature as per University Rules [11.15]. UTS structures research degrees into three formal stages designed to make explicit the development of skills and capacities, and the transition from emerging researcher (Stage 1), through independent researcher (Stage 2), to collaborative researcher (Stage 3). The intention is that the Stages are linked to achievement of clear milestones, rather than enrolment duration, although there are expectations on when assessments should happen.

Each Faculty is responsible for the detail of the assessment and transition between Stages. These processes need to be consistent with the ‘Candidature Assessment Guidelines’ developed by the UTS Graduate Research School. This section describes CIC’s procedures for each of the stage progression assessments.

4.1 First Review of ProgressBy the 6th month of their candidature (i.e. at their first ROP) students will be expected to produce:

A Doctoral Study Plan (DSP), see Appendix A for details. Evidence of completion of the required Research Integrity Training modules (see section 7.1). A written research proposal that has been approved by their supervisors. This must include:

o A concise expression of the aim of the projecto A 3 page (minimum) literature review that investigates related work in the domaino The current research questions that emerge from that literature reviewo A preliminary proposal for how the research questions will be answered (that is consistent with

the current DSP of the candidate). A completed Review of Progress Form (ROP), see Appendix B for details.

4.2 Stage 1 assessment: Confirmation of candidatureAt CIC, Stage 1 Confirmation and transition to Stage 2 is expected to occur within the following timeframes

Master’s candidate (full time) Within 6 months of enrolment

Master’s candidate (part time) Within 12 months of enrolment

Doctoral candidate (full time) Within 12 months of enrolment

Doctoral candidate (part time) Within 24 months of enrolment

At this stage candidates will undertake a “confirmation of candidature assessment” which must be passed in order to continue to Stage 2. This will comprise:

A written report including: a literature review, research proposal, reporting a pilot study and/or the design, implementation and evaluation of a learning analytics-related software prototype [including ethics approval if applicable]

An oral presentation to an invited audience (consisting of CIC academics, external academics, and other appropriate external groups)

A strategy for managing research data across the candidate’s lifecycle using Stash.

A panel is convened comprising: The RAO or their representative The supervisory team At least one academic external to CIC who has expertise in the field (they may be external to UTS)

Ideally this first panel will be maintained throughout the HDR student’s candidature to maintain coherence in feedback delivered to the student.

Monday, 21 May 2018

https://staff.uts.edu.au/topichub/Pages/Research/The%20UTS%20research%20environment/Technology%20for%20research/Managing%20archiving%20and%20publishing%20research%20data/managing-archiving-and-publishing-research-data.aspx

Candidates should aim to submit the written report at least 2 weeks before their oral presentation is scheduled. The report is forwarded to the panel for reading before the oral presentation.

The written report should be somewhere in the order of 15,000-25,000 words. The student should seek to clarify the target length with the supervisory team as the report evolves as per the conventions of the core field from which they come, and with a consideration of their eventual career goals.

The report should include: A literature review establishing the importance of the problem and the limits of our current understanding

that motivate this PhD A report of pilot work completed to date as evidence of the candidate’s skillset, and the feasibility of the

proposed work to follow. A proposal for the PhD that builds on the literature review and pilot work to outline a trajectory for

onward work. This should include: o A research problem and research questions defining the scope of the projecto A proposed research methodology and rationale including:

method and design for addressing the questions participants (and rationale for their selection in any planned studies) materials (including any instruments or equipment you’ll use, and any other resources

required) proposed analysis a timeline any ethical issues that might be encountered a statement of contribution – which outlines the significance of the proposed research

and the expected outcomes, and any limitations for the research

The oral presentation will be attended by the panel and other invited guests. It will by default not be public, but the student may request a public seminar at this stage if they desire this added recognition of their work. Even in a closed confirmation seminar, the student has the option to invite a representative to provide support during this process if desired. The representative may be a student, a staff member not on the panel, or even a member of the public. While they will be allowed to attend the seminar and the questions, they will wait with the student while the panel reaches its final decision. The seminar itself will last for 30 minutes, with up to 30 minutes allotted to questions.

The panel will meet immediately after the seminar to determine whether the candidate has met the requirements for progressing to stage 2 according to their oral and report. The oral and research proposal are assessed according to a set of general and specific criteria:

1. Articulates a focussed, substantive, problem space and research question(s)2. Articulates a coherent, critical, literature review3. Develops a feasible, appropriate, methodology and approach to the research to address the gap

identified4. Articulates a clear research design, method, operationalisation of variables, and analysis plan, with

consideration of ethical issues5. Articulates a ‘contribution’ for a specified audience(s)6. Feasibility of timetable7. Communication and oral presentation of research items

Determination, Feedback and Notification of the Decision

Monday, 21 May 2018

The Assessment Panel’s decision as to whether the candidate has satisfied the Assessment requirements is made by a vote of Panel members with a simple majority determining the outcome. If the Assessment Panel is divided equally, the RAO or their nominee has a second or casting vote.

The Candidate will be informed of the Panel’s determination verbally on the day of the assessment. The supervisory team will oversee the preparation of a written report, including feedback and assessment outcomes against each of the above Criteria. Each member of the panel will provide input to and sign-off of this report within 7 business days of the assessment, with a copy provided to the Senior Manager for reference. The CIC Senior Manager will add the report to the CIC file for the Candidate, and forward a copy to the UTS Graduate Research School within 7 business days of the assessment.

A template for the report is provided in Appendix C.

The report has two purposes, like the ROP forms. The basic purpose is to serve the administrative function of noting the candidate’s performance against the criteria and the decision. The higher purpose is where the real value comes: the report should be a constructive account of the process and its outcomes – the conversations, suggestions, reflections, assessments and agreements of what needs attention in the report. This second purpose makes the report a valuable record and reference point for the candidate and supervisors (who may also choose to publish a version as a CIC Technical Report), and for future PhD candidates.

In accordance with the UTS Graduate Research School’s Candidature Assessment Guidelines, the outcome of the assessment will be one of the following:

Satisfactory Candidature stage assessment is successful and graduate research student moves to the next candidature stage.

Reassessment required

Candidature stage assessment is unsuccessful and graduate research student must re-submit the report for re-assessment according to instructions provided by the panel.

Unsatisfactory Candidature stage assessment is unsuccessful and CIC recommends either (a) course downgrade (if possible) or (b) discontinue the candidature to be assessed by the Dean of the GRS.

Should a reassessment be required, the panel will give clear guidance on the issues to be addressed and how. This may include further pilot work. The revised report will make clear how the feedback has been acted on, and the panel may request another presentation at this time.

4.3 Stage 2 assessment: Confirmation of advanced progressStage 2 assessment (Confirmation advanced progress) is expected to occur within the following timeframes

Master’s candidate (full time) Within 12 months of enrolment

Master’s candidate (part time) Within 24 months of enrolment

Doctoral candidate (full time) Within 24 months of enrolment

Doctoral candidate (part time) Within 48 months of enrolment

Monday, 21 May 2018

At Stage 2 examination CIC expects its HDR students to produce:

at least one draft conference or journal paper

an accompanying public oral presentation

a DSP that convincingly demonstrates how the last year of research will result in a completed thesis.

Two options are available for a student to successful complete this stage:

Option 1: They present a peer reviewed paper at an academic conference that is approved by the RAO and supervisory team. At this stage, if their DSP is considered satisfactory then they will automatically pass this stage upon successfully passing their ROP.

Option 2: If the student has not yet presented a peer reviewed paper at an academic conference then they will have the option of following a more standard procedure as follows.

A panel is convened to assess successful completion of this stage, comprising: The RAO or their representative The supervisory team At least one academic external to CIC who has expertise in the field (they may be external to UTS)

As mentioned in section 4.2, this panel will ideally be the same panel who assessed the student for stage 1.

The oral presentation will form the substantial component of this assessment. Candidates should prepare a 45 minute seminar that:

provides an in-depth justification for the content and quality of the developing thesis, normally including a rationale, the research questions, the theoretical frames that have guided methodology, data collection, analysis and interpretation, and emerging principal findings.

begins to identify and articulate the candidate’s insights and contributions (i.e. preliminary conclusions against the research questions), including demonstrating the capacity to speak authoritatively about literature and practice in order to position and make an argument for how a contribution is indeed a contribution

sets out a feasible plan to complete the thesis.

The oral presentation will be attended by the panel and open to the public. The student has the option to invite a representative to provide support during this process if desired. The representative may be a student, a staff member not on the panel, or even a member of the public. While they will be allowed to attend the seminar and the questions, they will wait with the student while the panel reaches its final decision. The Candidate will be informed of the Panel’s determination verbally on the day of the assessment. The supervisory team will oversee the preparation of a written report, including feedback and assessment outcomes against each of the above Criteria. Each member of the panel will provide input to and sign-off of this report within 7 business days of the assessment, with a copy provided to the Senior Manager for reference. The CIC Senior Manager will add the report to the CIC file for the Candidate, and forward a copy to the UTS Graduate Research School within 7 business days of the assessment.

A template for the report is provided in Appendix C.

In accordance with the UTS Graduate Research School’s Candidature Assessment Guidelines, the outcome of the assessment will be one of the following:

Satisfactory Candidature stage assessment is successful and graduate research student moves to the next candidature stage.



Monday, 21 May 2018


Should a reassessment be required, the panel will give clear guidance on the issues to be addressed and how. The student will then submit a report (and revised DSP if necessary) that makes clear how the feedback has been acted on, and the panel may request another presentation at this time.

4.4 Stage 3 assessment: Confirmation of readiness to submit thesis for examination

Introduction

This section sets out expectations and processes for CIC HDR students seeking to prepare their thesis for assessment and transition to completion. The Candidate’s Final Assessment and transition to completion happens towards the end of Stage 3, during the six months prior to submission, as a check that the thesis is ready to submit. UTS guidelines for the Final Assessment and oral presentation can be found in the University rules [11.18 and 11.19]. Expected timeframes for completion of the Final Assessment are outlined below.

Masters candidate (full time)

Within 18 months of enrolment

Masters candidate (part time)


Doctoral candidate (full time)


Doctoral candidate (Part time)


The Stage 3 assessment process consists of a two-step process (see below).

A panel will be convened consisting of: The RAO or their representative The supervisory team At least two academics external to CIC who have expertise in the field (they may be external to UTS)

As mentioned in section 4.2, this panel will ideally consist of the same panel who assessed the student for stage 1, but at least one extra academic should be added to the original panel to help provide an objective perspective on the thesis quality and readiness for submission.

4.4.1 Step 1

A final seminar of around 50 minutes length will be presented in a publicly advertised forum (due approximately 3 months before anticipated submission). This seminar will be followed by questions from the panel and the audience about the presented research.

Before the presentation the candidate must produce: A suitable abstract advertising the seminar An outline of their thesis structure (minimally in the form of a table of contents).

Monday, 21 May 2018

Candidates will also be strongly encouraged to provide a substantial draft of their thesis to the panel ahead of time in order to ensure that this opportunity for formative feedback is used to its best advantage.

In the oral presentation, the graduate research student must be able to demonstrate the following: a well-argued description and defence of the thesis; an original contribution to knowledge.

Immediately after the seminar the panel will provide oral feedback to the candidate about what steps they should take to ensure a quality thesis is produced. It will be the responsibility of the supervisory team to record notes about this feedback and to provide it to the student within 7 days to help guide the development of a high quality thesis.

4.4.2 Step 2In this step, the candidate will submit a draft of the full thesis to the panel approximately one month after the final seminar. The draft should consider the panel’s recommendations and a report describing how they have been addressed should be submitted along with the thesis draft.

In the written draft of the thesis, the student must be able to demonstrate the following: all the criteria used for examination of the final thesis are met; a structure appropriate to the genre; clear and cohesive writing; accurate grammar, spelling, punctuation.

The panel will have one month to read the thesis, writing a review of their thoughts for the student as per the template provided in the form in Appendix C. Members will send their review to the principal supervisor as they finalise it.

The principal supervisor will be responsible collating the feedback recorded by the panel members in the assessment template. They will consider the recommendations made by the panel as follows:

1. If there is unanimous support for a satisfactory grade then the principal supervisor will collate the recommendations as appropriate, and provide feedback to the candidate as an aggregated form.

2. If there is disagreement among panel members then the principal supervisor will convene a meeting (which could be virtual) of the panel to decide upon the result of this assessment. Unanimous support should be sought, but if this is not possible then a majority vote will be used (and a note recorded that this was the case). The supervisory team will then collate the recommendations and feedback as they consider appropriate, and provide feedback to the candidate as an aggregated form.

4.4.3 Assessment

In accordance with the UTS Graduate Research School’s Candidature Assessment Guidelines, the outcome of the assessment (which will be decided upon during the meeting stage 2) will be one of the following:

Satisfactory Candidature stage assessment is successful and graduate research student is ready to submit thesis.




Monday, 21 May 2018

Should a reassessment be required, the panel will give clear guidance on the issues to be addressed and how. The revised report will include a submission that makes clear how the feedback has been acted on.

4.5 AppealsWhere a graduate research student has failed an assessment, and a recommendation has been made to discontinue the candidature, an appeal process is available. Refer to Rule 11.24 (http://www.gsu.uts.edu.au/rules/student/section-11.html#r11.24) to appeal against discontinuation or downgrade of candidature. In this case the student must:

lodge an appeal with the Dean GRS within 20 days of official notification, or

lodge a request with the Dean GRS to consider an extension of time to submit an appeal against discontinuation. Except in exceptional circumstances, any such request must be received within 15 working days of the date of official notification.

Further information about this process can be found in Rule 11.24 (http://www.gsu.uts.edu.au/rules/student/section-11.html#r11.24).

4.6 Extension of candidatureA graduate research student who has reached the maximum period of candidature may apply for extension of candidature. Graduate research students must complete extension of candidature form and demonstrate the circumstances, beyond their control, which have interrupted their research as evidenced in their progress reports. It would be expected that circumstances beyond the control of the student would be related to the conduct of their research project. Students who encounter personal difficulties during their candidature are encouraged to request Leave of Absence.

For Doctoral degrees, a student may request up to six months’ extension time. The maximum extension allowance is 12 months.

For Master’s by research degrees, a student may request up to six months. The maximum extension allowance is six months.

The request for extension of candidature must be supported by realistic completion plan with a timeline and previous session ROP. If a prior extension application has been approved and further extension is requested, the graduate research student must provide an explanation for the additional delay in thesis submission.

The request must be submitted to CIC for the principal supervisor and Faculty RAO. Both the principal supervisor and Faculty RAO must assess the completion plan and makes a recommendation on the application. If the request is not supported, the Faculty must communicate the outcome to the graduate research student with a plan of action. If the request is endorsed by CIC then the request will be submitted to GRS for Dean’s approval. The GRS communicates the outcome of the request to the graduate research student in writing. The decision of the Dean GRS is final.

If approved, the period of extension will be based on the proposed timeline and evaluation by the Dean GRS. All international sponsored students must obtain approval from their sponsor and UTS International prior to submitting the request. Extension applications must be submitted no earlier than six months and no later than two months before the expected work submission date. If no request for an extension of candidature is received within this timeframe, the student’s candidature will be discontinued within two months after the EWS date.

Extension of candidature does not guarantee a scholarship extension. If a graduate research student is supported by a scholarship and is eligible to be considered for a scholarship extension, this request must be applied for separately.

Note that students enrolled from Autumn 2018 will be subject to fees for overtime candidature (see Research Training Program Scholarship Policy).

Monday, 21 May 2018

http://www.gsu.uts.edu.au/rules/student/section-11.html#r11.24

http://www.gsu.uts.edu.au/rules/student/section-11.html#r11.24

5 Graduate Research Study PlanA Framework for Research Education was launched by UTS in 2011, where students prepare an annual Graduate Research Study Plan (GRSP), separate but linked to the Review of Progress report each semester. The Framework is a means of structuring and reflecting on the learning process for students’ individual development as well as their research plans. The GRSP is designed to encourage planning ahead and reporting on what has been achieved whilst ensuring each student takes advantage of the spectrum of available opportunities.

The GRSP is created and updated in the template appropriate to their current stage of candidature (available in Appendix A). Students are expected to work with their supervisor to develop a GRSP, covering at least Stage 1 of their candidature, within the first month after commencement of study. The GRSP should subsequently be updated every 6 months and submitted to the RAO along with the Review of Progress each semester and is signed off by both the student and the supervisor.

At CIC, we regard the GRSP as an aid to planning your development as a researcher, from both a career and personal perspective. The Review of Progress (see Section 6) focuses on planning your research project.

5.1 Fortnightly student meetingsThe CIC HDR Program convenes fortnightly student meetings from March to November each year. All CIC HDR students are expected to attend these training events, which are led by each CIC HDR student on a rolling basis. Students are expected to participate in these meetings, which can involve seminars, set readings and discussions, career planning sessions or other topics as negotiated with the HDR program directors. They are a core training event on the CIC calendar, and so should ideally be incorporated into the GRSP under discussion with the supervisory team.

Monday, 21 May 2018

6 Review of progressReview of Progress reports and updates of Graduate Research Study Plans are due in June and November each year, according to the timeline established in the Graduate Research Candidature Management and Examination Procedures. CIC will inform students of exact deadlines at least one month in advance of the due date.

Until an online system is implemented by UTS, CIC uses its own Review of Progress template in which the student reflects, reviews and assesses their progress, and plans their progress for the next semester.

An example template is provided in Appendix B. The process should adhere to the following steps:

1. The student completes the Review of Progress document and submits to their supervisors for assessment.

2. The supervisors review the report, agree on the feedback, and return this to the student.

3. Feedback is discussed and both the student and supervisor sign off.

4. The Review of Progress report is then submitted to the CIC Senior Manager for collation, and the RAO is provided with the signed reports for final approval. Failure to submit this document and the accompanying Graduate Research Study Plan by the due date will normally result in progress being deemed ‘unsatisfactory’ for that semester.

5. The Senior Manager forwards the completed form to the student, supervisors and reports the outcome to GRS.

Monday, 21 May 2018

7 Research EthicsLearning Analytics is fundamentally about people, so CIC expects its researchers to act according to the highest ethical standards for performing human research, and as such expects its HDR students to follow these principles. Learning how to ethically conduct research in human-centred data science is a key Graduate Attribute for CIC HDR students, and it is essential that they pay close attention to acquiring these skills.

Knowing how to submit an acceptable HREC proposal is a core researcher skill in CIC. HDR students are expected to seek ethics approval for their research from the UTS Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) as necessary. Students should follow the procedures outlined at the HREC webpages (https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/about-uts-research/ethics-and-integrity/human-research-ethics). They should discuss their proposal with their supervisors as it develops, seeking advice and guidance as appropriate.

7.1 Research integrity trainingAll graduate research students are required to successfully complete research integrity training.

These modules are designed to support students to engage in responsible research practices that are carried out to the high standards of conduct and practice including honesty and integrity, respect for human participants, animals and the environment, acknowledgement of the contributions of others in research, and responsible communication of results.

This training is comprised of five modules and two quizzes. The timeline for completion of this training is as follows:

Within the first 3 months of candidature: Module 1/Quiz 1;

Within the first 6 months of candidature: Module 2-5/Quiz 2

All graduate research students are required to attach their certificate of completion for both Quiz 1 and Quiz 2 to their candidature Stage 1 assessment documentation.

Monday, 21 May 2018

https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/about-uts-research/ethics-and-integrity/human-research-ethics

https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/about-uts-research/ethics-and-integrity/human-research-ethics

8 Student employment

8.1 Paid employment while on a scholarshipIt is essential that you check your own scholarship conditions to see what is allowed before undertaking any paid work.

HDR students with a UTS or APA scholarship are permitted to undertake up to 8 hours per week paid work while holding the scholarship, without requiring approval. If you want to work more than 8 hours per week, you need written approval from the RAO. International scholarships are generally more restrictive.

If you have an IPRS or IRS scholarship, you need approval from the RAO and the Graduate Research School prior to undertaking any paid work.

Always check your own scholarship conditions to see what is allowed. However, in the above cases, the process for seeking approval is as follows:

1. Write to the RAO making your case for approval. This can be quite brief, specifying how many hours per week you will typically be working, and for what period, and making the case that the work will not interfere with your ability to devote the necessary hours to your research degree (35 hours per week full time, 17.5 hours per week part time).

2. Get this endorsed by your supervisor. An email saying that they support your case and that they don’t think the work will interfere with your progress will be sufficient.

3. The RAO will then make a decision on approval and let you know (for UTS / APA scholarships) or pass on to the GRS for final approval. In most cases, as long as you are progressing well, approval should be forthcoming.

4. Record details of your paid work in each Review of Progress, so that we have a record of it.

8.2 Collaborative research projectsCIC staff are engaged in numerous collaborative research projects and opportunities frequently arise for HDR students to participate in these, which is invaluable work skills experience. In some cases, HDR students may be full-time or part-time employees at CIC. In these cases, it is important to keep track of the student’s individual contribution to any research projects that may be written up as part of the final thesis. HDR students working on collaborative research projects should keep a journal that documents their individual contributions to those projects.

In the thesis, HDR students should clearly acknowledge collaborative contributions to their thinking. Ideally, students should include a statement of their contribution to the research project and have it signed by collaborators. This ensures there is no doubt over the student’s original contribution to knowledge.

Monday, 21 May 2018

9 Thesis preparation and submissionThese guidelines are aligned with the more detailed document: UTS Graduate Research Candidature Management, Thesis Preparation and Submission Procedures 2018 — Sec. 9. Thesis preparation and presentation. CIC students should consult that document for more information.

9.1 StructureA conventional thesis is structured as a series of chapters. The number and title of chapters is to be agreed upon by the student and their supervisory panel. Following GRS policy, a conventional thesis includes:

Title Page; Certificate of original authorship, including RTP/collaborative degree arrangement acknowledgement (if

applicable); Acknowledgment including reference to persons who have assisted in the research work itself or in the

preparation of the thesis itself, including any editorial assistance Statement indicating the format of thesis; List of papers/publications included (if appropriate to format of thesis chosen); Statement of contribution of authors (if appropriate to format of thesis chosen); Preface, if any; Table of Contents; List of illustrations and tables, if any; Abstract;

An introduction to the research study and a justification of how it adds to knowledge in the field;

A review of the literature;

A description and justification for the research approach and methods;

A presentation of results;

A discussion, indications of future work directions, and conclusion;

Appendix or appendices, if any;

Bibliography.

9.2 FormatGRS policy (Sec. 9.5) specifies the formatting requirements:

The typing must be 1.5 spaced or double-spaced and in a legible font. Single-spacing may only be used for appendices and footnotes.

The margins on each sheet must not be less than 40mm on the left-hand size, 20mm on the right-hand side, 30mm at the top and 20mm at the bottom to allow for binding.

The thesis should meet high standards for a large academic text, including:

Numbered chapters and headings

Numbered figures and tables using the scheme <Chapter No.Figure No.> e.g. Figure 4.3, Table 7.9

Author (date) citation format to assist readers in identifying cited works

Bibliography should include, where possible, formal DOI else or other links to assist readers

The use of a reference management tool and automatic numbering of figures/tables is therefore highly recommended for efficiency.

In learning analytics there are diverse genres of PhD due to its interdisciplinary nature, so there is no hard rule about word length. Supervisors will advise. See GRS policy for details of typical thesis word lengths.

9.3 Thesis-related publicationsIt is normal for a CIC doctoral student to have published parts of their research prior to thesis submission. Where relevant, a list of the publications with full reference details is required on a separate page in the front matter.

Monday, 21 May 2018

Where published material is reproduced/adapted in a thesis chapter, a footnote should clarify which material, and the relevant citation(s).

9.4 Digital artefactsSince a learning analytics PhD will often have associated software, demonstration movies, and/or educational resources, submissions may link to or include (e.g. on DVD) relevant artefacts that the examiners are either required, or requested, to review. If online, it is the candidate’s responsibility to ensure that it is accessible to the examiners, with CIC’s support.

9.5 Alternative thesis formatsA thesis by compilation (a combination of chapters and published/publishable works with linking narrative) is permitted.

A thesis by publication (one manuscript of compiled peer reviewed publications, accompanied by a thesis narrative) is available only for students enrolled prior to 31 December 2017.

For details see GRS policy.

Monday, 21 May 2018

Appendix A: Doctoral Study Plan Templates for stages 1-3

STAGE 1 CONFIRMATION OF CANDIDATURE

ELEMENT Research practice, advanced disciplinary knowledge and skills, and research methodologies

OUTCOMES ACTIVITIES AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION

Goal Activities (contributing to goal)

Review/assessment of progress against goals

Contributing to a research community and to advancing disciplinary knowledge

Able to demonstrate active engagement with local and institutional research community for scholarly and social purposes.

Becoming a responsible and ethical researcher

Able to explain relevant policies and processes for the ethical and responsible conduct of research; where appropriate gain certification.

See Compulsory modules:

Developing research skills and knowledge

Able to articulate research reasoning and research plans (in written and oral forms) to a critical, informed audience, based on experience, and on developing expertise through engagement with the relevant literature and academics.

Planning and organising

Able to develop a doctoral study plan appropriate to existing knowledge, skills and expertise; able to develop the research project plan including budget, timeline, and resource and equipment needs.

Communicating research

Able to use the language of the discipline/s in appropriate genres to a critical, defined audience, based on developing expertise.

Monday, 21 May 2018

A written report

An oral presentation to a closed audience

STAGE 1 ASSESSMENT AND

OUTPUTS

STAGE 1 AGREEMENT

SIGNATURESSTUDENT: ________________________________________________PRINCIPAL SUPERVISOR: ___________________________________

DATE:

STAGE 2 CONFIRMATION OF ADVANCED PROGRESS




Able to actively contribute to local, scholarly and/or professional research communities.


Able to effectively do ethical and responsible research.


Able to rigorously distinguish between their work and others in the field, based on experience, expertise and literature.


Able to demonstrate progress of research project; able to revise doctoral study plan where necessary; and when necessary able to adapt research approach and methods that take into account the context of the research, the rights and obligations of the researcher and research team, and the standards of research practice.


Able to use the language of the discipline or field across a number of spoken and written genres for different audiences.

STAGE 2 ASSESSMENT AND

OUTPUTS

Presentation to a public audience

Draft journal or conference paper

DSP describing how final year will result in completed thesis

STAGE 2 AGREEMENT


DATE:

Monday, 21 May 2018

STAGE 3 CONFIRMATION OF READINESS TO SUBMIT THESIS FOR EXAMINATION




Able to make critical contributions to improving local, institutional, scholarly and/or professional research communities; able to use the language, tools and concepts of a scholarly community; able to produce the knowledge and artefacts of the scholarly community.


Able to evaluate ethical practices in research, as required by UTS or other approving bodies; able to demonstrate that research has been conducted to the highest standard of transparency and ethical behaviour.


Able to demonstrate use of available digital and non-digital resources to continuously develop research skills and knowledge


Able to demonstrate near completion of thesis; able to plan next steps in research career, by establishing strong relationships with key people and creating links with others in order to, for example, plan future research projects and take up opportunities for the development/implementation of the research outcomes.


Able to successfully argue for the nature and impact of their contribution to the field, based on experience, expertise and literature; able to contribute to and/or change the direction of the conversation within the discipline/field/profession through publicly available communication of new knowledge/insights.

STAGE 3 ASSESSMENT AND OUTPUTS

Thesis

Publicly advertised seminar on research findings

STAGE 3 AGREEMENT


DATE:

Monday, 21 May 2018

Appendix B: Review of Progress

Semester Review and Plan Progress Report for Higher Degree Research Students1

PART 1 Candidature DetailsGiven Name(s) Student ID Family Name Course PhD

Other Principal supervisor Other supervisors Enrolment for current semester Full

Time Part Time

Planned enrolment for forthcoming semester Full Time

Part Time

Current thesis title A brief description of your research

The Semester Review and Plan asks you to consider your research degree from two angles the first is what is under perspectives firstly, your research itself – the content and outcomes of your research – and secondly, the development of you as a researcher – your personal and professional skills, capabilities, and contributions. It encompasses a backward looking review and a forward looking plan. And, the resulting four components need to be documented. The diagram below shows where and how to do so.

Your research Your development as a researcher

Reflecting, Reviewing, Assessing your progress

Reviewing progress against previous goals (column 3)

Reviewing progress against previous goals (column 3)

Planning for next semesterSetting goals/activities against those goals (columns 1 & 2)

Setting goals/activities against those goals (columns 1 & 2)

This review is an opportunity for you to reflect on your previous semester’s achievements, how they differed from what was planned, what the actions arising are, including revising your goals for both your research and your personal/professional development for next semester and the rest of your candidature.

DEADLINES: All currently enrolled students are required to submit their fully signed Semester Review and Plan by the last Friday in February, and the last Friday in August.The review of progress comprises 2 documents this Progress Report, and your Doctoral Study Plan. The Doctoral Study Plan is part of the UTS Doctoral Framework. For further information, guidance, and resources please refer to http//www.research.uts.edu.au/framework/index.html and https://utscic.edu.au/research/phd-training-program/

You (the student) are responsible for filling out this report, and completing/updating your Doctoral Study Plan, getting the documents jointly signed off by you and your supervisor, and submitted to our Research Administrator by the due date. You should work closely with your supervisors to do this.

1 This template is based on the UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures semester and review plan template 2016.

Monday, 21 May 2018

https://utscic.edu.au/research/phd-training-program/

http://www.research.uts.edu.au/framework/index.html

Failure to submit this document and the accompanying Doctoral Study Plan by the due date will normally result in progress being deemed ‘unsatisfactory’ for that semester. This designation can have serious implications for your continued enrolment.

If you have issues or concerns relating to your progress that cannot be specified here, please contact CIC HDR coordinators (Kirsty Kitto & Roberto Martinez-Maldonado).

PART 2 Overview of Your ProgressWhat is your formal expected thesis submission date?

How many hours per week have you devoted to your research this semester? (Full time students are expected to dedicate 35 hours per week to their work. Part time students are expected to dedicate 17.5 hours per week as a guideline)

How often have you been in contact with your principal supervisor(s) this semester?

How have you maintained contact with your principal supervisor?

How often have you been in contact with your other supervisor(s) this semester?

How have you maintained contact with your other supervisor(s)?

Please rate your progress this semester in relation to your goals and work plan for the period (tick one)

Very much more than I planned More than I planned About what I planned Less than I planned A lot less than I planned

Please add any other comments or reflection relevant to the period

Monday, 21 May 2018

PART 3 Progress and Planning in Your Research & Professional Development

Please include a copy of the DSP for your stage of candidature (or attach) – landscape makes best use of the column spaces.

Monday, 21 May 2018

PART 4 Supervisor/s Assessment of Your ProgressThis part should be filled out by the Principal Supervisor, in consultation with the other Supervisors.

Supervisor/s review of progress against what was planned (tick one)

Very much more than we planned More than we planned About what we planned Less than we planned A lot less than we planned

Supervisor/s assessment of progress Satisfactory Conceded Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Supervisor/s Report Please briefly report on the highs and lows of this semester, explain your assessment of this student’s progress, note implications for timely completion and provide advice on appropriate actions, as needed.

PART 5 Sign OffWe (the student and supervisor/s) have discussed and agreed on this Review of Progress and the attached, updated Doctoral Study Plan.

Student signature Date

Principal Supervisor signature

Date

Other Supervisors signature(s)

Date

PLEASE NOW SUBMIT THIS FORM WITH YOUR UPDATED DOCTORAL STUDY PLAN TO THE CIC RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR

27

[Choose date]\

PART 6 Recommendation by CICThis part should be filled out by the CIC Responsible Academic Officer.

1. Assessment of progress Satisfactory Conceded Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

2. Comments and recommendations for action

RAO SignatureRAO Name Date

V1.0 April 2017

28

[Choose date]\

Appendix C: Assessment report template for all stages (i.e. 1-3)

1 CandidateGiven Name(s) Student ID Family Name Course PhD

Masters by ResearchPrincipal supervisor Other supervisors Enrolment for current semester Full Time Part TimePlanned enrolment for forthcoming semester Full Time Part TimeCurrent thesis title PhD Assessment Stage

2 Feedback on Presentation and Panel Sessions

STRENGTHS

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

3 Feedback on Report

STRENGTHS

SUGGESTED REVISIONS

REQUIRED REVISIONS

DEADLINE FOR REVISED REPORT:

29

[Choose date]\

Documents

s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com · Web viewThe CIC HDR procedures are a companion document to the Graduate Research Candidature Management and Examination Procedures developed by