Progress & Evaluation Reports

Committee Meeting Progress Report

The committee meeting progress report should be a maximum of four pages (single-spaced, 12 point uncondensed Times New Roman font, 2 cm margins). The four pages do not include the cover page, title page, 300 word abstract, references, figures, tables, and the summary of achievements. The progress report must be distributed to committee members via the Committee Meeting form at least seven calendar days prior to the committee meeting.

The start of the report should contain the following:

• A title page: Name, date of entry into the graduate program, project title, list of Committee Members, meeting location, date and time.
• An abstract briefly (300 words or less) summarizing the background and main goals of the research.

The body of the report (4 pages or less) should detail:

• The background for your project.
• The main objective and specific aims of your project.
• A summary of progress described at previous Committee Meetings.*
• A summary of progress made since the last Committee Meeting.*
• A summary of the recommendations or concerns that were made at the last Committee Meeting and an explanation of how these were addressed (or why they were not addressed).*
  *These starred sections are not required for the first Committee Meeting.
• A summary of what experiments are planned in the near future (i.e., six months to a year), and what goals remain to be achieved to complete the thesis.

The additional sections (not included in the 4-page limit) include:

• Pre-reclassification/pre-qualification meeting only: A one-page outline of the reclassification/qualification proposal.
• Time to Completion meeting only: A projected thesis outline and timeline of remaining experiments.
• Terminal meeting only: A one- to two-page outline of the proposed thesis.
• A summary of achievements since starting graduate school: a list of awards, meeting abstracts, publications (submitted, in press, or published).
• Figures: These should be included in the report to make it easier to describe the research.
• List of references as needed.

Failure to adhere to these guidelines will result in a low mark in the “Quality of Report” section of Committee Meeting Report and may be reflected in your overall score for the meeting and/or entitle supervisory committee members to request a revised report that adheres to these guidelines before the meeting can proceed.

Evaluation Report

The Chair of the Committee is responsible for filling out the Supervisory Committee Evaluation Report at every meeting (except for exams, defences, and the pre-reclass/qualification meeting). The Chair communicates the Committee’s assessment of the student's progress to the student. Other Committee members may then elaborate.

Marking scheme

The student will be marked in several categories using the following categorical scale:

• Exceeds Expectations
• Meets Expectations
• Needs Improvement
• Unsatisfactory (Fail)

Scores of “Unsatisfactory” are considered a failing grade. Over time, it generally takes improvement on the part of the student to simply maintain the same grade obtained in previous meetings, as the expectations are higher with continued time in the program. Committee members are urged to use the full scale and to mark students in relation to other students at the same level.

Categories to be marked

• Background Knowledge: This must be specifically tested at each Committee Meeting with at least 15 min of questioning in this area. Students are expected to have knowledge in areas that are not directly related to their thesis topic but relevant to their general research area. Questions should be the same type of background questions that are asked on reclassification/qualification exams and MSc and PhD defences. Questions should also probe the student’s ability to place their work in a wider context (i.e., “The Big Picture”).
• Understanding of the System: The Committee should evaluate the student’s familiarity with the directly relevant literature and experimental techniques, experimental design, and overall rationale/logic of the project.
• Initiative/Leadership: This section is intended to evaluate how engaged in the project the student is. Are they reading the literature and generating their own new ideas for the project? Are they working efficiently and spending their time in the lab productively? Have they taken ownership and initiative over the project and are not simply going through motions?
• Experimental Skills: The Committee will assess the quality of the data throughout the presentation. This section addresses whether a student can successfully execute the experiments they have set out to perform, include appropriate controls, and generate high quality data from which conclusions can be drawn. This section also relates to whether students are intrepid in their experiments: Do they attempt and master new techniques?
• Critical Thinking: This includes the ability to independently troubleshoot experiments, design proper experiments including controls, critically evaluate data, and construct sensible hypotheses to explain results.
• Organizational Skills: This covers whether the student organizes their experiments, data, and thoughts clearly. Are they keeping appropriate notes and records on their experiments? Are the properly maintaining the data they acquire? This also covers how they communicate their data and organize their thoughts. Is the information flow logical and clear or disorganized and nonlinear?
• Progress: Based on the elapsed time, complexity of the experiments, and any other confounding variables, has the student achieved the goals they set out to address since their last meeting? Have they generated new data? Is the student on an appropriate timeline for their degree?
• Communication with Supervisor: Does the student initiate discussions about their project, data, and progress? Do they share new data and ideas routinely with the PI?
• Quality of Report: Is the report clear, logical, and well-organized? Are there grammatical and spelling mistakes? Are all of the important components included? Was the report handed in 7 days before the meeting?
• Quality of Oral Presentation: This segment addresses how clear, well-organized, and on point the presentation was. Was there sufficient background? Were the questions framed well and data presented clearly, with appropriate conclusions drawn? Did the student speak loudly and clearly enough?

An Overall Score is assigned based on the overall performance and component scores. If an Overall Score of “Unsatisfactory (Fail)” is assigned, the student must hold another committee meeting within 3 months—see Lack of Sufficient Progress.

Lack Of Sufficient Progress

If a student’s overall progress or performance in the program is deemed to be insufficient by the Supervisory Committee, they will receive an Overall Score of "Unsatisfactory (Fail)” on their Supervisory Committee Meeting Evaluation Report. This report must include a specific description of the problems and how the student may improve their performance.

A student receiving an overall score of “Unsatisfactory (Fail)” must have another Committee Meeting in less than 3 months. An additional member of the Graduate Team, Executive Committee, or Designated Examiners may be added at this next meeting to assess the situation. This is determined by the Graduate Coordinator on a case-by-case basis. If the student does not attain an overall grade above “Unsatisfactory (Fail)” at this next Committee Meeting, the student may be asked to withdraw from the program. If the student is permitted to stay in the program at this point, strict conditions will be established in consultation with the Committee and the Graduate Coordinator to ensure that progress is closely monitored.