Before reading the guidelines outlined on this page, ensure you have reviewed all the information about Progress Reviews, including the criteria for each review, and PPL4.60.05 Higher Degree by Research Candidature Progression.

How to organise a Progress Review

The following guidelines outline the management and conduct of HDR Progress Reviews in the School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering. These guidelines should be used in combination with the policy and procedures documents in PPL4.60.05 Higher Degree by Research Candidature Progression. Further instructions to help you to arrange your upcoming review are available here.

Progress Reviews Snapshot

 

Confirmation of Candidature (R1)

Review 2 (R2)

Review 3 (R3)

Candidature Documents

Project Documents

  • Proposal (confirmation report)  (10-15 main pages)
  • Ethics application/approval, etc.
  • iThenticate report
  • Confirmation presentation
  • Progress Report 2-3 pages

  • Draft thesis report e.g. 70-80% completed
  • iThenticate report
  • Thesis review Presentation

Review Meeting

60 minutes

30 minutes

60 minutes

Oral Presentation 

Open presentation followed by a closed question and discussion session (30 minutes presentation + 20 minutes questions/discussion)

No presentation is required if the HDR student made conference presentation. If there is no publication a 15-minute presentation + 10 minutes questions/discussion is recommended

School wide Open Presentation followed by a question session (30 minutes presentation + 20 minutes questions)

Note: Documents should be submitted by the census date of the research quarter in which your review is due.

Panel Composition

Your Progress Review Panel (PRP) in the School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering will consist of a chair (with disciplinary knowledge of the HDR) and two reviewers. The advisory team (Principal supervisor and associate supervisor) can give input to the review panel and the panel will make independent decision on the progress.