1st year phd progress report sample pdf

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Current students
• PhD students
• Progression
• Department of Computer Science and Technology

Sign in with Raven

• People overview
• Research staff
• Professional services staff
• Affiliated lecturers
• Overview of Professional Services Staff
• Seminars overview
• Weekly timetable
• Wednesday seminars
• Wednesday seminar recordings ➥
• Wheeler lectures
• Computer Laboratory 75th anniversary ➥
• women@CL 10th anniversary ➥
• Job vacancies ➥
• Library resources ➥
• How to get here
• William Gates Building layout
• Contact information
• Department calendar ➥
• Accelerate Programme for Scientific Discovery overview
• Data Trusts Initiative overview
• Pilot Funding FAQs
• Research Funding FAQs
• Cambridge Ring overview
• Ring Events
• Hall of Fame
• Hall of Fame Awards
• Hall of Fame - Nominations
• The Supporters' Club overview
• Industrial Collaboration
• Annual Recruitment Fair overview
• Graduate Opportunities
• Summer internships
• Technical Talks
• Supporter Events and Competitions
• How to join
• Collaborate with Us
• Cambridge Centre for Carbon Credits (4C)
• Equality and Diversity overview
• Athena SWAN
• E&D Committee
• Support and Development
• Targeted funding
• LGBTQ+@CL overview
• Links and resources
• Queer Library
• women@CL overview
• About Us overview
• Friends of women@CL overview
• Twentieth Anniversary of Women@CL
• Tech Events
• Students' experiences
• Contact overview
• Mailing lists
• Scholarships
• Initiatives
• Dignity Policy
• Outreach overview
• Women in Computer Science Programme
• Google DeepMind Research Ready programme overview
• Accommodation and Pay
• Application
• Eligibility
• Raspberry Pi Tutorials ➥
• Wiseman prize
• Research overview
• Application areas
• Research themes
• Algorithms and Complexity
• Computer Architecture overview
• Creating a new Computer Architecture Research Centre
• Graphics, Vision and Imaging Science
• Human-Centred Computing
• Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence
• Mobile Systems, Robotics and Automation
• Natural Language Processing
• Programming Languages, Semantics and Verification
• Systems and Networking
• Research groups overview
• Energy and Environment Group overview
• Declaration
• Publications
• Past seminars
• Learning and Human Intelligence Group overview
• Technical Reports
• Admissions information
• Undergraduate admissions overview
• Open days and events
• Undergraduate course overview overview
• Making your application
• Admissions FAQs
• Super curricular activities
• MPhil in Advanced Computer Science overview
• Applications
• Course structure
• Funding competitions
• Prerequisites
• PhD in Computer Science overview
• Application forms
• Research Proposal
• Funding competitions and grants
• Part-time PhD Degree
• Premium Research Studentship
• Current students overview
• Part IB overview
• Part IB group projects overview
• Important dates
• Design briefs
• Moodle course ➥
• Learning objectives and assessment
• Technical considerations
• After the project
• Part II overview
• Part II projects overview
• Project suggestions
• Project Checker groups
• Project proposal
• Advice on running the project
• Progress report and presentation
• The dissertation
• Supervisor briefing notes
• Project Checker briefing notes
• Past overseer groups ➥
• Part II Supervision sign-up
• Part II Modules
• Part II Supervisions overview
• Continuing to Part III overview
• Continuing to Part III: 2023 guidance
• Part III of the Computer Science Tripos
• Overview overview
• Information for current Masters students overview
• Special topics
• Part III and ACS projects overview
• Submission of project reports
• ACS projects overview
• Guidance for ACS projects
• Part III projects overview
• Guidance for Part III projects
• Preparation
• Registration
• Induction - Masters students
• PhD resources overview
• Deadlines for PhD applications
• Protocol for Graduate Advisers for PhD students
• Guidelines for PhD supervisors
• Induction information overview
• Important Dates
• Who is here to help
• Exemption from University Composition Fees
• Being a research student
• Researcher Development
• Research skills programme
• First Year Report: the PhD Proposal
• Second Year Report: Dissertation Schedule
• Third Year Report: Progress Statement
• Fourth Year: writing up and completion overview
• PhD thesis formatting
• Writing up and word count
• Submitting your dissertation
• Papers and conferences
• Leave to work away, holidays, and intermission
• List of PhD students ➥
• PAT, recycling, and Building Services
• Freshers overview
• Cambridge University Freshers' Events
• Undergraduate teaching information and important dates
• Course material 2023/24 ➥
• Course material 2024/25 ➥
• Exams overview
• Examination dates
• Examination results ➥
• Examiners' reports ➥
• Part III Assessment
• MPhil Assessment
• Past exam papers ➥
• Examinations Guidance 2022-23
• Marking Scheme and Classing Convention
• Guidance on Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct
• Purchase of calculators
• Examinations Data Retention Policy
• Guidance on deadlines and extensions
• Mark Check procedure and Examination Review
• Lecture timetables overview
• Understanding the concise timetable
• Supervisions overview
• Part II supervisions overview ➥
• Part II supervision sign-up ➥
• Supervising in Computer Science
• Supervisor support
• Directors of Studies list
• Academic exchanges
• Advice for visiting students taking Part IB CST
• Summer internship: Optimisation of DNN Accelerators using Bayesian Optimisation
• UROP internships
• Resources for students overview
• Student SSH server
• Online services
• Managed Cluster Service (MCS)
• Microsoft Software for personal use
• Installing Linux
• Part III and MPhil Machines
• Transferable skills
• Course feedback and where to find help overview
• Providing lecture feedback
• Fast feedback hotline
• Staff-Student Consultative Forum
• Breaking the silence ➥
• Student Administration Offices
• Intranet overview
• New starters and visitors
• Forms and templates
• Building management
• Health and safety
• Teaching information
• Research admin
• Miscellaneous
• Fourth Year: writing up and completion
• PhD resources

All candidates for the PhD Degree are admitted on a probationary basis. A student's status with the Student Registry is that he or she will be registered for the CPGS in Computer Science . At the end of the first academic year, a formal assessment of progress is made. In the Department of Computer Science and Technology, this takes the form of a single document of no more than 10,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, bibliography and appendices.

The document is principally a PhD Proposal . That is, a document that demonstrates a clear path from the candidate's current position to a complete PhD thesis at the end of the third year. The document has two purposes: (i) to help the candidate to reflect on and plan their research project and (ii) to allow the Computer Laboratory to assess the student's progress and planned research.

In the document, the candidate should do the following:

• Identify a potential problem or topic to address for the PhD.
• identifying the seminal prior research in the topic area
• the most closely related prior work, and
• their strengths and weaknesses.

The goal is to show the limitations (or lack) of previous work. One method that could be employed to do this is to provide both a taxonomy of prior work and a gap analysis table: a table whose rows are the closest related work, the columns are the desired attributes of the solution, and each table entry is a Yes or a No. This would then clearly show that no prior work meets all the desired attributes.

This section of the document might be expected to form the basis of part of the candidate's final PhD thesis.

Candidates should have already done some preliminary research. This may be early attempts at proofs, a detailed analysis of existing methods, a critique of existing systems, assembly and testing of investigative apparatus, conduct of a pilot experiment, etc. This section of the document may form the basis of a chapter of the final PhD thesis. It is common for the candidate to have produced an academic paper (even if this is a minor paper for a workshop, for example), where they are the main author. The paper does not need to have been published, but the assessors should be able to see that it is of potentially publishable quality. Such a paper can be submitted as an appendix to the document; in this case the material in the paper should not be reproduced in the document, but should be summarised briefly in a self-contained way.

This should indicate, at a high level, the research that might be undertaken in the second and third years of the PhD. It needs to show that there is a viable route to a thesis in two years' time. In particular, it must state the specific research question or questions that are being addressed. If there are more than one question being addressed, it needs to be made clear how they are interconnected and how answering them would result in a coherent thesis story. They need to also be accompanied with a brief discussion of why they are important and interesting questions that are worthy of a Cambridge PhD, and why they are new (the gap analysis table could be used for this). Next, the candidate needs to describe the proposed method of attacking the questions, for example, by listing the major steps to completion through the next two years.

Some candidates find it useful to structure this as a cohesive one-page summary of the proposed thesis, with a tentative title, a paragraph setting the context, and three or four paragraphs describing chunks of the proposed research, each of which could be the basis for an academic paper and each of which could be expected to be a chapter of the final thesis. The chapters should make a cohesive overarching narrative of the thesis, rather than be stand-alone pieces of work.

A paragraph identifying criteria for success is recommended where the candidate explains how they will convince the research community that their approach is successful.

Potential risks are recommended to be identified: what could derail this methodology (technically) and if this happens what is plan B?

• Timeplan: provide a detailed timetable, with explicit milestones for each term in the next two years against which the candidate will measure their progress. This would ideally include technical tasks that are planned to be accomplished during each time chunk.

It is essential that the supervisor(s) agrees that the document may be submitted. The document will be read by two other members of staff (assessors), who will interview the student about the content of the document in a viva. It should therefore give sufficient information that the assessors can satisfy themselves that all is well. It is expected that the interview will take place before the end of the first year.

Submission deadlines (electronic)

• For students admitted in Michaelmas Term, by June 30, 23:59
• For students admitted in Lent Term, October 30, 23:59
• For students admitted in Easter Term, by January 30, 23:59

All submissions should be made electronically via the filer.

Electronic version (in PDF format) should be provided via the PhD report and thesis upload page . This deposits uploaded files on the departmental filer at /auto/anfs/www-uploads/phd = \\filer.cl.cam.ac.uk\webserver\www-uploads\phd.

Students intending to take up research placements during the vacations which begin on, before, or shortly after the submission deadlines must submit their report one month before departure to enable the examination process to be completed before the internship begins . No other extensions will be permitted unless otherwise authorized by the Secretary of the Degree Committee.

Oral examination

The student will be invited to discuss the documents with two assessors appointed by the student's principal supervisor. Neither of the assessors should be the student's principal supervisor though one may be the student's second advisor. Occasionally, the principal supervisor may be invited to clarify elements of the PhD Proposal and to attend the viva as an observer.

Where the initial PhD Proposal document is unsatisfactory, the assessors must ask for a revised submission and arrange a further discussion. Where the PhD Proposal is acceptable, it may still help the student to record suggested modifications in a final version of the Proposal. A copy of the revised document must be submitted to the Secretary of the Degree Committee.

The PhD Proposal document is internal to the Laboratory. However, since it is the basis for formal progress reports including registration for the PhD Degree and those made to funding bodies, assessors should endeavour to arrange a meeting where the documents should be assessed and discussed by the end of the student's first year at the latest. The Secretary of the Degree Committee should be informed of the result by the assessors and by the supervisor on the Postgraduate Feedback and Reporting System as soon as possible thereafter.

The report will be considered by the Degree Committee which will make its recommendations on the registration of the student to the Board of Graduate Studies.

In those cases where the student's progress is wholly inadequate, the supervisor should give them a written warning by 15 September (or the appropriate corresponding date - 15 December or 15 March) that they are in danger of termination, with copy to the Secretary of the Degree Committee.

The word limit is a maximum; it is not a target. Successful PhD Proposal documents can be significantly shorter than the limit. Writing within the word limit is important. It is part of the discipline of producing reports. When submitting reports (and the final PhD thesis), students will be required to sign a Statement of Word Length to confirm that the work does not exceed the limit of length prescribed (above) for the CPGS examination.

Originality

Attention is drawn to the University's guidance concerning plagiarism. The University states that "Plagiarism is defined as submitting as one's own work that which derives in part or in its entirety from the work of others without due acknowledgement. It is both poor scholarship and a breach of academic integrity." The Faculty's guidance concerning plagiarism and good academic practice can be found at https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/exams/plagiarism.html .

Reports may be soft-bound in comb-binding or stapled.

Secretary of the Degree Committee September 2013, updated September 2021, updated March 2022

Department of Computer Science and Technology University of Cambridge William Gates Building 15 JJ Thomson Avenue Cambridge CB3 0FD

Information provided by [email protected]

Privacy policy

Social media

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

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 .

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

• Top 10 AI-Based Research Paper Abstract Generators
• EditPad Research Title Generator: Is It Helpful to Create a Title for Your Research?
• Are Postdoctoral Fellowships Taxable? A Guide to Understanding Tax Implications
• How to Get Off-Cycle Research/Academic Internships
• How to End Your Academic/Research Internship?
• 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

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Research students
• First year requirements
• Graduate students, Department of Engineering
• Home overview
• Key contacts
• Arrival and induction
• Roles and responsibilities
• First year requirements overview
• Taught modules & RDCs
• First year report
• First year assessment process
• Part-time PhD students
• Your progress
• PhD: thesis submission and examination
• MPhil: thesis submission and examination
• Taught course contacts and websites
• Examinations and coursework
• Applying for a PhD
• Time away from the department
• Working whilst you study
• Changing course, supervisor or mode of study
• Committees and representation
• Making a complaint
• Funding for current students
• Design and Manufacturing facilities
• Engineering Library
• Graduate prizes
• Writing and publishing your work
• Where to go for help
• Academic progress
• Pastoral issues
• Issues with supervision
• Wellbeing intiatives
• Researcher Development Courses (RDCs)
• Skills training for all students
• Supervisor eligibility
• Graduate admissions & funding overview
• Supervisor training
• Supervisors' responsibilities
• Research students' examination

All students following the PhD course in Engineering are required to submit a First Year Report (FYR).  This is an important part of your first year and assessment of your report, along with your module results, will determine if you will be registered for the PhD Degree and be allowed to continue your course.

You can start thinking about your FYR from the start of your course. Your supervisor will ask you to review the current literature in your area of research so you can start writing your literature survey in your first term. Sessions on writing your First Year Report are offered as part of the Researcher Development Courses, which all students should attend.

Your report should be 10,000 – 15,000 words . Although this is not a strict word limit, it should not be necessary for your report to exceed 15,000 words.

You can find the deadline for submitting your FYR here .

The title of your report should be agreed with your supervisor. Your report should include the following:

Literature Survey Clear statement of the Research Objectives Description of the methods that will be used Progress to date Programme of further research to be carried out for the PhD degree, including realistic estimates of timing and dates.

Self-plagiarism

Students who have completed and been examined for an MPhil or MRes before starting a PhD in the same subject often have concerns about self-plagiarism when it comes to writing their first year probationary report, if the PhD project is a continuation of the MPhil/MRes work.

If previously examined MPhil/MRes research forms part of the background work for the PhD project, the student should state in the report Introduction the extent to which (s)he has drawn on that work. It is recognised that the phrasing and content of the Introduction of the report is likely to be very similar to the MPhil/MRes introduction and this is acceptable. However, it must be entirely updated for submission as part of the first year report. The 'Results and Discussion' section should only include original work which has been conducted in the probationary year. Where it is absolutely essential to include parts (e.g. tables, diagrams etc.) of the work previously examined, these must be clearly identified in the text. The assessors should be in no doubt as to what work the student has completed in their probationary year towards their PhD research and it is this that will be assessed.

There is no standard format for the report but the following guidelines should be followed:

The report must be written in English Formatted on A4 page size, in portrait format Double-printed is acceptable One-and-a-half spaced type Minimum font size 11pt and 10pt for any footnotes. Easily readable fonts should be used, for example Arial, Times New Roman.

Submitting the report

If you wish to notify assessors of any disability or request adjustments on account of such disability for your assessment meetings, you can do this via your Degree Committee by completing and submitting the  voluntary disclosure form . Please do this well in advance of your submission deadline as it can take some time for the DRC to advise the Degree Committee of any adjustments that should be made.

You should upload an electronic version of your report by the relevant deadline. Students in Division A will need to upload to Sharepoint. Students in Divisions B, C, D, E and F will need to upload to Moodle . Earlier submission is encouraged.

The Degree Committee attach importance to submission by the due date, and the Secretary of the Degree Committee is required to inform them of the name of any student who fails to submit by the prescribed time.

Extensions to the FYR deadline

Extensions are usually only granted in cases where a student has previously intermitted. If this applies, please email the Secretary of the Degree Committee , who will adjust your FYR submission deadline accordingly. If you have not had an intermission but still wish to apply for an extension, please email the Secretary of the Degree Committee giving the reason that you are requesting an extension, and the time required. We will contact your supervisor and College Tutor to confirm their support before considering your request. Extensions will only be granted exceptionally, and will usually be short.

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...