Student feedback - Midterm review

Transkriptio

1 Student feedback - Midterm review ENG Doctoral Programme Professor seminar 21 Apr Coffee and tea Opening of the seminar, Dean Gary Marquis Student feedback and midterm review at Doctoral Programme of Engineering, Chair Harri Koivusalo Group discussions: Best practices of midterm review Conclusions Lunch

2 Doctoral Programme Committee Harri Koivusalo (BE) Professor, Water Resources Engineering Risto Lahdelma (ME) Professor, Energy Systems for Communities, mathematical modelling and optimization Seppo Junnila (BE) Professor, Real Estate Business Marketta kyttä (BE) Professor, Land Use Planning Jussi Leveinen (CIVE) Professor, geological engineering 2

3 Feedback from 28 graduates of Mode of doctoral studies was mainly: Jatko-opintojen pääasiallinen muoto: Vastaajien määrä: Gender / Sukupuoli Vastaajien määrä: Department of your supervising professor / Laitos(vastuuprofessorisi) Vastaajien määrä: 28 3

4 Funding 5. Funding of doctoral studies: Jatko-opintojen rahoitus: Vastaajien määrä: 28 4

5 Study time 6. Active time spent on doctoral studies in years: Tohtoriopintoihin aktiivisesti käytetty aika vuosissa: Vastaajien määrä: 28 years / vuotta 5 5, , , , , ,5 Yhteenveto: Alle 4 vuotta 4 vastaajaa 4-5 vuotta 15 vastaajaa Yli 5 vuotta 9 vastaajaa 5

6 Why delays 7. If your study time (active) was longer than 4 years, why did your studies exceed 4 years? Jos opiskeluaikasi (aktiivinen) oli pidempi kuin neljä vuotta, miksi opintosi venyivät? Vastaajien määrä: 22 6

7 8. Please give your evaluation on following matters concerning doctoral studies: Anna arvioisi seuraavista jatko-opintoihin liittyvistä asioista: Vastaajien määrä: Yhteensä Keskiarvo The aims of my dissertation were clear / Väitöskirjani tavoitteet olivat selkeät ,25 Funding my doctoral studies including research work was secured at the beginning of my studies / Tohtoriopintojeni, myös ,32 tutkimustyöosuuden, rahoitus oli varmistettu opintojeni alussa I received enough help and guidance for applying personal grants/funding / Sain riittävästi ohjausta ja apua henkilökohtaisten ,18 apurahojen hakemiseen I received enough guidance for my research work / Sain riittävästi ohjausta tutkimustyöhön ,29 I received enough guidance for writing the dissertation / Sain riittävästi ohjausta ,46 väitöskirjan kirjoittamiseen I received enough guidance for career planning during my studies / Sain riittävästi ,79 ohjausta urasuunnitteluun opintojeni aikana Doctoral studies have given good qualifications for working life / Jatko-opinnot ovat antaneet hyvät valmiudet työelämää varten ,75 Other reasons/comments, please specify and/if you did disagree with some matters, why? / Muut syyt/kommentit, tarkenna ja/tai jos olit jossain kohdassa eri mieltä, miksi? ,54 7 Yhteensä ,07

8 9. How well was the following realized during your doctoral studies? Miten hyvin seuraavat osa-alueet toteutuivat jatko-opinnoissasi? Vastaajien määrä: Yhteensä Keskiarvo Becoming well-versed in my field of research / Omaan tutkimusalaan syvällisesti perehtyminen ,14 Becoming well-versed in social significance of my field of research / Syvällisesti oman tutkimusalan yhteiskunnalliseen merkitykseen ,71 perehtyminen Gaining knowledge and skills needed to apply scientific research methods independently and critically / Itsenäisten ja kriittisten valmiuksen hankkiminen tieteellisen tutkimuksen menetelmien ,36 soveltamiseksi Gaining knowledge and skills needed to produce new scientific knowledge / Valmiuksien hankkiminen uuden tieteellisen tiedon ,18 luomiseen Becoming conversant with the development, basic problems and research methods of my field of research / Oman tutkimusalan kehitykseen, perusongelmiin ja tutkimusmenetelmiin syvällisesti perehtyminen Gaining such knowledge of the general theory of science and of other disciplines relating to the field of research that enables to follow their development / Yleisen tieteenteorian ja tutkimusalaan ,39 liittyvien muiden tieteenalojen tuntemuksen saavuttaminen niin, että niiden kehityksen seuraaminen mahdollistuu Gaining adequate knowledge of communication and language skills and other abilities in order to function in the working life in the extensive and demanding expert and development tasks as well as in international cooperation / Riittävien viestintä- ja kielitaitojen sekä ,82 muiden valmiuksen saavuttaminen työelämän laajoissa ja vaativissa asiantuntija- ja kehitystehtävissä sekä kansainvälisessä yhteistyössä toimimisen mahdollistamiseksi 8 Yhteensä ,94

9 After graduation 13. Your employment situation after obtaining doctoral degree: Työllisyystilanteesi tohtoriksi valmistumisen jälkeen: Vastaajien määrä: Does your current job relate to your education? Vastaako nykyinen työsi koulutustasi? Vastaajien määrä: 28 9

10 17. Where are you working (after obtaining doctoral degree)? Missä työskentelet (tohtoriksi valmistumisen jälkeen)? Vastaajien määrä: In which field does your work (after obtaining doctoral degree) categorize? Mihin tehtäväkenttään työsi (tohtoriks valmistumisen jälkeen) kuuluu? Vastaajien määrä: 28 10

11 Some remarks Students gain good and useful professional and academic skills Typical graduation time in terms of active study time is not far from 4 yrs Funding situatuons vary Still variability in the level of supervision/instruction Career plans are not well considered Labor market looks positive 11

12 Doctoral studies - process Course work & research Year 0 Y e a rrr 4 12

13 Midterm review: ENG annual reviews Implement a system for mid-term reviews SAB recommendations Midterm exam early enough in the doctoral studies. Currently mid-term review is implemeted for those students who have Aalto 2+2 yrs funding Students who started in autumn 2016 were informed about the mid-term review in the application information material 13

14 Tasks Why do we need a midterm review? How should mid-term review be implemented? What are the objectives of the review, target students, timing, decisions? What type of freedom is provided for professors / research groups to decide about details of the midterm-review? What can be the results of the midterm reviews? 14

15 Midterm currently at Aalto ENG Midterm instructions for 2+2 Aalto-funded doctoral students Prepare a midterm report What is achieved in studies (coursework / research) Update the plan and time table to complete the studies Supervisor provides a statement about the study/report Before 2 years of studies Student reports progress and updates plan Supervisor writes a statement Coordinator summarises results for Committee 15

16 Midterm at RYM TO Doctoral programme (20??-2013) After 2 years of studies Student writes report to coordinator and updates plans Supervisor writes a statement Memo prepared about Steering group meeting Meeting with head of Doctoral Programme Evaluation of results by RYMTO

17 Midterm at RYM TO: report contents An estimation of the month and year of completion of the dissertation project Current state of the research What has been accomplished during previous year: The number of conference papers The number of journal articles The number of credits What will be done during next year Greatest challenges so far Participation in RYM-TO events, seminars and courses Appendices A short memo of the steering group meeting Statement from the supervisor on the progress of dissertation studies Transcript (of completed credits) List of publications Updated Research Plan The progress of the dissertation will be evaluated based on the report and the individual meeting with the head of the doctoral programme.

18 Midterm at SCI/Physics Review coordinator: Professor Objectives From January 1st 2013 midterm reviews for all new PhD students. standardize PhD study duration to 4 years. The specific aims of these reviews are as follows: Help in defining a structured research project by encouraging the discussion of objectives and the planning of steps towards publishable results. Strengthen the link between student, instructor and supervisor, and provide early identification of any problems. Provide training toward independence in key aspects of research: literature review, report preparation, analysis and oral presentation. Formalize aspects of PhD education by providing a compulsory course relevant to all students (passing the midterm review is worth 10 ETCS credits out of the minimum of 40 required). Give a significant head start to writing the final thesis by applying a similar structure to the midterm report. Offer general feedback from an external referee not directly involved in the project. Provide the official criteria for promotion to higher salary bracket. Allow early exit from the PhD programme if this proves in the best interests of the student. 18

19 Midterm at SCI/physics Start to prepare after 15 months Coordinator checks out progress with student and prof. Referee is selected Student makes long progress report Closed meeting (Coordinator, Supervisor Referee, Instr.) Public exam (presentation and discussion) Supervisor and referee write pass/fail statement Report submitted to coordinator and referee Statement reported to coordinator 19

20 Midterm procedure at SCI/Physics Eligibility Compulsory for full-time students, and encouraged for part-time students. PhD students initially hired on a two-year contract The midterm review must be undertaken no later than 18 months after starting the PhD. Preparation Begin preparations 3 months before the exam. Failure to organise the exam result in an automatic fail. The coordinator of the review process should be notified of the candidate for review. The coordinator will independently contact both the supervisor/instructor and PhD student to provide a confidential overview of progress. This will include a brief summary of the PhD status (real start dates, credit status, publications). The main supervisor contacts an independent professor or senior researcher as a referee and agrees the selection with the coordinator (no formal restrictions other than that they should be from another group). Consider choosing an expert in the PhD student's topic, so that the examination actually has real benefit. The date for the presentation is agreed (candidate, supervisor, referee and coordinator). Midterm refusal If the main supervisor decides that the PhD student is not suitable for midterm examination, the coordinator should be notified as early as possible. The coordinator will then organize individual meetings with the supervisor/instructor and the PhD student in order to understand the grounds for refusal. If there is no evidence of professional negligence or midconduct, the midterm is failed and no report or exam will be considered. A separate discussion meeting will be organized between the coordinator, supervisor/instructor and PhD student, and Human Resources and an external professor. 20

21 Midterm report at SCI/Physics page progress report submitted 3 weeks prior to the oral presentation to the coordinator and referee. Contents: Short introduction to field of research, including a literature review. Aim of project. Account of methods, results and conclusions so far. Brief summaries with reference to included manuscripts is not acceptable. Plan for remaining study period. Excerpts from published, submitted or draft manuscripts may be included as part of the report, but the total length should not exceed 20 pages and it must have a coherent structure. If manuscripts are included separately, e.g. in an appendix, then they are not counted towards the report requirement of pages. 21

22 Midterm exam at SCI/Physics The final part of the the midterm review is presentation of the current status of the PhD. It should consist of the following: An oral presentation (45 minutes) with at least the coordinator, referee and main supervisor (and instructor if relevant) present. This is an open presentation that can be considered as a regular scientific seminar with a normal audience. The candidate should follow the structure of the midterm report in preparing this talk, with particular consideration to the likely general nature of the audience. Open scientific discussion (15 minutes), as following any standard scientific presentation. Closed meeting of the coordinator, referee and main supervisor/instructor with the candidate to discuss any outstanding issues (10 minutes). The final section of the presentation is a closed meeting of the coordinator, referee and main supervisor/instructor to discuss the evaluation and preparation of the statement (10 minutes). 22

23 Midterm evaluation at SCI/Physics Referee and main supervisor agree whether the exam is passed or failed They jointly write a brief statement (1 page) containing: Description and assessment of progress report. Assessment of oral presentation. Overall assessment highlight any threats to completion. Within two weeks of the oral presentation, the report is sent to the coordinator. If the PhD student does not pass the examination: The student can be offered a re-examination, which must be held no later than three months after the first examination. If the student or main supervisor does not accept the offer of re-examination, PhD study is terminated at the end of the current contract. If the PhD student does not pass the re-examination, PhD study is terminated at the end of the current contract. Re-examination does not extend the total time of study beyond 4 years. If the student, main supervisor and/or referee disagree over the evaluation, the coordinator will bring the subject to the attention of the head of department. 23

24 Group work Provide your suggestions, warnings, opinions, experience about Why do we need a midterm review? How should mid-term review be implemented? What are the objectives of the review, target students, timing, decisions? What type of freedom can be provided for professors / research groups to decide about details of the midtermreview? What can be the results of the midterm reviews? How are the decisions made? Prepare to present your message to everyone. 24