Supervision & Monitoring Workflow

Workflow Overview: This workflow covers the Supervision Phase, which occurs during the student's third trimester (12 weeks). During this period, supervisors guide students through their dissertation work while internal examiners provide independent oversight.

Supervision Phase (12 Weeks)

This phase runs during the student's third trimester, from initial meeting through dissertation submission.

Initial Meeting (Week 1)

Supervisor Establishing the Relationship

The initial meeting sets the tone for the entire supervision period. Use this meeting to:

Establish Clear Expectations

Communication preferences - How often will you meet? What's the best way to contact each other?
Response times - What are reasonable expectations for email responses or feedback turnaround?
Meeting format - In-person, online, or hybrid? What should students prepare for each meeting?
Availability - Share your schedule and any planned absences during the supervision period

Agree Scope, Milestones, and Deliverables

Review the approved proposal - Ensure you both understand the project aims and objectives
Set realistic milestones - Break the 12-week period into manageable chunks with specific goals
Define deliverables - Clarify what constitutes the final submission (code, report, datasets, etc.)
Discuss methodology - Confirm the research approach and any ethical considerations

Schedule Minimum 6 Supervision Meetings

Plan meeting dates across the 12-week period (typically every 2 weeks)
Consider scheduling around the Week 6 Initial Report deadline
Allow flexibility for additional meetings if needed
Book rooms or send calendar invites to ensure commitment

Explain Meeting Notes Requirement

After each meeting, create brief notes documenting:
- What was discussed
- Decisions made
- Advice given
- Actions for the student
Student must review and sign off on notes (confirms mutual understanding)
Notes form part of the evidence trail for the viva panel

Future feature: Supervision meeting notes system - structured capture of meeting records

Ongoing Supervision (Weeks 1-12)

Supervisor Regular Supervision Meetings

Throughout the 12-week period, maintain regular contact with your student:

Conduct Minimum 6 Meetings

Regular touchpoints are essential to monitor progress and provide guidance:

Stick to the schedule agreed in the initial meeting
Each meeting should have a clear agenda (student should come prepared)
Balance listening (understand what the student has done) with advising (guide next steps)
Encourage critical thinking rather than providing direct solutions

Maintain Meeting Notes

After each meeting, create and share notes with the student:

Document discussions - Record key points raised by both parties
Record decisions - Note any changes to scope, methodology, or approach
Capture advice given - Document guidance provided (important for authentication later)
Student sign-off - Student must confirm the notes are accurate

Important: Meeting notes are critical evidence for the viva panel. They demonstrate the supervision provided and help authenticate student work.

Monitor Technical Understanding

Throughout supervision, verify the student genuinely understands their own work:

Ask probing questions - Don't accept superficial explanations; dig into technical details
Check comprehension - Can the student explain why they made certain choices?
Look for consistency - Does their understanding match across meetings?
Test knowledge - Ask them to explain code, methodology, or results in their own words

Track Progress Against Milestones

Ensure the project is on track:

Review progress against the milestones set in the initial meeting
Identify any slippage early and adjust plans accordingly
Be realistic about what can be achieved in the remaining time
Help students prioritise if scope needs to be reduced

Raise Flags When Necessary

If you have concerns about student work or progress, use the flag system (see Red Flag Protocol below).

Future feature: Progress tracking dashboard - visualise milestones and flag status

Mid-Point Review (Week 6)

Internal Examiner Initial Report Review

At the mid-point (Week 6), the Internal Examiner reviews the student's Initial Report:

Review Independently

Assess literature review - Is it comprehensive, critical, and well-structured?
Evaluate methodology sections - Are methods appropriate and clearly described?
Check progress - Has the student made meaningful progress toward objectives?
Identify gaps - What needs strengthening in the remaining weeks?

Provide Feedback

Give constructive comments separate from supervisor feedback
Highlight strengths and areas for improvement
Suggest specific actions for the remaining weeks
Avoid duplicating supervisor guidance (offer an independent perspective)

Supervisor + IE Traffic Light Assessment

The supervisor and IE collaborate to assign a traffic light status:

Status	Meaning	Action
Green	On track; no concerns about progress or authenticity	Continue normal supervision
Amber	Some concerns; requires attention	Increased supervision focus; monitor closely
Red	Significant concerns; ML notified	Module Leader alerted; intervention may be required

Future feature: Initial Report feedback submission - structured feedback form

Future feature: Traffic light status tracking - record and monitor status changes

Red Flag Protocol

Supervisor / IE Raising Concerns

Use the flag system to report concerns about student work authentication:

Flag	Meaning	Action Required
Yellow	Awareness - minor concerns noted	No escalation required; document in meeting notes
Red	Significant concern - potential authenticity issues	Notify Module Leader within 48 hours
Critical	Clear evidence of misconduct	Immediate referral to Module Leader for formal process

What IS a Flag:

Authentication concerns - You doubt the student produced the work themselves
Lack of understanding - Evidence the student doesn't understand their own work
Unexplained capability jumps - Sudden improvement in quality or complexity without explanation
Inconsistent work quality - Quality doesn't match what you've seen in meetings
Inability to explain - Student cannot articulate how they achieved results
Code/methodology mismatch - Student describes one approach but submits something different

What is NOT a Flag:

Poor performance - Work is weak but clearly the student's own effort
Missing deadlines - Progress issues, not authenticity concerns
Weak technical skills - Lack of ability, not lack of honesty
Slow progress - Time management issues, not misconduct
Mistakes or errors - Errors are normal; perfect work is more suspicious than imperfect work

Remember: Flags are about authentication (is it their own work?), not about quality (is it good work?).

Future feature: Flag system - structured flag submission with evidence attachment

Escalation Handling

Module Leader Red Flag Response

When a red or critical flag is raised, the Module Leader manages the escalation:

Receive and Review

Receive notification within 48 hours of flag being raised
Review evidence provided by supervisor/IE
Examine meeting notes, submission history, and any other relevant documentation
Assess the severity and credibility of concerns

Determine Appropriate Action

No action - Concerns are minor; continue monitoring
Enhanced supervision - Require more frequent meetings or additional evidence
Formal meeting - Convene meeting with student to discuss concerns
Misconduct referral - If evidence warrants, initiate formal misconduct process

Convene Meetings if Needed

If concerns are substantive, arrange a meeting with:

The student (to hear their explanation)
The supervisor (to discuss evidence)
Both parties together (if appropriate)

Document All Decisions

Record the concerns raised
Document investigation steps taken
Note the rationale for decisions made
Keep an audit trail for potential future reference

Formal Intervention

If intervention is required:

Meeting with student - Discuss concerns and give student opportunity to respond
Additional supervision or support - May mandate more frequent meetings or specific deliverables
Tier assignment impact - Flag history affects viva tier allocation (enhanced scrutiny in Assessment Phase)

Misconduct Referral

If evidence suggests academic misconduct:

Initiated when evidence strongly indicates dishonesty or plagiarism
Follow university misconduct procedures
Mark may be withheld pending investigation outcome
Student has right to respond and present evidence

Future feature: Case management - track escalations and misconduct referrals

Previous: Proposal Preparation Next: Viva Management