Staff Guide

Overview

This guide covers staff responsibilities across the MSc Dissertation Framework. The framework operates through a Three-Track System (Track A: Pre-approved topics, Track B: Student-proposed topics, Track C: External/collaborative projects) and progresses through four stages plus supervision and assessment.

Framework Stages
  1. Stage 1: Initial Exploration (T1) - Students explore interests; PDT assesses English and advises on track
  2. Stage 2: Proposal Development (T2 Early) - Students develop proposals; PDT provides feedback
  3. Stage 3: Formal Approval (T2 Week 6-7) - Module Leader approves proposals
  4. Stage 4: Supervision Allocation (T2 Week 8-9) - Supervisors and IEs assigned

After allocation, the Supervision Phase (T3) begins, followed by the Assessment Phase (marking, viva, final grade).

Visual Timeline: See the full interactive dissertation timeline for a visual overview of all roles and responsibilities.

Timeline Quick Reference

Phase PDT Supervisor IE Panel ML
September - Post topics - - Coordinate collection
T1 - First PDT Assess English; advise track - - - -
T2 Week 2 Receive proposal - - - -
T2 - Second PDT Review proposal; feedback - - - -
T2 Week 6-7 - - - - Approve proposals
T2 Week 8-9 - - - - Allocate Supervisor/IE
T3 Week 1 - Initial meeting - - -
T3 Weeks 1-12 - Conduct 6+ meetings - - -
T3 Week 6 - Review Initial Report Review Initial Report - Receive Red flags
T3 Week 12 - Mark dissertation Mark dissertation - Receive submissions
Post-submission - Agree mark; Joint Rec. Agree mark; Joint Rec. - Assign tiers; form panels
Pre-viva - Submit Joint Rec. Submit Joint Rec. Review evidence Provide summaries
Viva Day - Not on panel Not on panel Conduct viva Available for consultation
Post-viva - Provide evidence if needed Provide evidence if needed Confirm final mark Review borderline

Note: The viva panel comprises two independent examiners who are neither the Supervisor nor the Internal Examiner.

Role-Specific Guidance

Select your role below for detailed guidance. You may expand multiple sections if you hold multiple roles.

Stage 1: Initial Exploration (T1)

During the first PDT meeting, your role is to help students begin their dissertation journey:

  • Explore project areas - Discuss the student's interests, background, and career goals
  • Assess English language proficiency - Categorise as:
    • Strong - No concerns; proceed normally
    • Adequate - Minor issues; recommend academic writing support
    • Concern - Significant issues; require English support before T3
  • Advise on track selection - Help students choose between:
    • Track A - Pre-approved topics from the database
    • Track B - Student-proposed topics (requires stronger proposal skills)
    • Track C - External/collaborative projects (additional verification required)
  • Direct to topics/staff - Point students toward relevant pre-approved topics or potential supervisors
Future feature: PDT meeting notes capture - record English assessment and track recommendation
Stage 2: Proposal Development (T2 Early)

At the second PDT meeting, review the student's draft proposal:

  • Review 1-page proposal - Check alignment with the proposal template
  • Assess feasibility - Consider scope, resources, and timeline
  • Provide feedback - Identify areas for improvement before formal submission
  • Verify English progress - For students with concerns, check they are engaging with support
  • Track C additional checks - Verify external organisation details and IP arrangements
Future feature: Proposal feedback form - structured feedback capture for PDT review

Topic Posting (September)

Post structured project topics to the pre-approved database:

  • Create clear, well-defined project definitions using the standard template
  • Include: title, aim, objectives, deliverables, research questions, methodology, evaluation criteria
  • Specify any prerequisites or required skills
  • Provide academic references for context

Create Project Definition

Future feature: Topic submission deadline notification - automated reminder before collection deadline
Supervision Phase (T3)

Once allocated, you are responsible for guiding the student through their dissertation:

Initial Meeting (Week 1):

  • Establish clear expectations and communication preferences
  • Agree scope, milestones, and deliverables
  • Schedule minimum 6 supervision meetings across T3
  • Explain meeting notes requirement (student signs off each meeting)

Ongoing Supervision (Weeks 1-12):

  • Conduct minimum 6 meetings - Regular touchpoints to monitor progress
  • Maintain meeting notes - Document discussions, decisions, and advice given
  • Monitor technical understanding - Verify the student understands their own work
  • Track progress - Ensure milestones are being met
  • Raise flags - Report concerns via the flag system (see below)
Future feature: Supervision meeting notes system - structured capture of meeting records
Marking and Joint Recommendation

After dissertation submission:

  1. Mark independently - Use the marking rubric without consulting the IE
  2. Meet with Internal Examiner - Discuss marks and reach agreement
  3. Agree provisional mark - This becomes the recommended mark
  4. Produce Joint Marker Recommendation - Document agreed mark and supporting rationale
  5. Submit to panel - The Joint Marker Recommendation goes to the viva panel
Important: You do not sit on the viva panel. The panel comprises two independent examiners who review your Joint Marker Recommendation.
Future feature: Joint Marker Recommendation submission - structured form for agreed mark and rationale
Red Flag Protocol

Use the flag system to report concerns about student work:

Flag Meaning Action
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, evidence the student doesn't understand their work, unexplained capability jumps, work quality inconsistent with meetings

What is NOT a flag: Poor performance, missing deadlines, weak technical skills (these are progress issues, not authentication issues)

Initial Report Review (T3 Week 6)

At the mid-point, review the student's Initial Report:

  • Review independently - Assess literature review and methodology sections
  • Provide feedback - Give constructive comments separate from supervisor feedback
  • Contribute to traffic light assessment - Work with supervisor to assign status:
    • Green - On track; no concerns
    • Amber - Some concerns; requires attention
    • Red - Significant concerns; ML notified
Future feature: Initial Report feedback submission - structured feedback form
Marking and Joint Recommendation

After dissertation submission:

  1. Mark independently - Use the marking rubric without consulting the Supervisor
  2. Meet with Supervisor - Discuss marks and reach agreement
  3. Agree provisional mark - This becomes the recommended mark
  4. Produce Joint Marker Recommendation - Document agreed mark with supervisor
  5. Submit to panel - The Joint Marker Recommendation goes to the viva panel
Important: You do not sit on the viva panel. The panel comprises two independent examiners who review your Joint Marker Recommendation.
Future feature: Mark agreement workflow - record independent marks and agreed outcome

The viva panel consists of two independent examiners who are neither the Supervisor nor the Internal Examiner for that student.
Pre-Viva Preparation
  • Review the Joint Marker Recommendation - Understand the agreed provisional mark and rationale
  • Review evidence summaries - Supervision meeting notes, traffic light status, any flags raised
  • Understand the tier assignment - Tier 1/2/3 indicates the level of scrutiny required
  • Prepare authentication questions - Focus on verifying the student's understanding of their own work
  • Coordinate questioning approach - Agree with fellow panel member on areas to probe
Future feature: Evidence summary access - consolidated view of student evidence trail
Conducting the Viva

The viva follows a 28-minute structure:

  1. Student presentation (8 minutes) - Student demonstrates understanding of their own work
  2. Panel questions (15 minutes) - Authentication-focused questioning
  3. Deliberation (5 minutes) - Panel discusses and agrees outcome

Authentication focus: The viva is primarily about verifying that the student genuinely produced and understands the submitted work. Questions should probe:

  • Technical decisions and why they were made
  • Challenges encountered and how they were overcome
  • Understanding of code, methodology, or analysis
  • Awareness of limitations and potential improvements

Three-tier questioning approach:

  • Tier 1 - Standard authentication; no specific concerns
  • Tier 2 - Enhanced scrutiny; some flags or concerns in evidence
  • Tier 3 - Intensive authentication; significant concerns raised
Decision and Outcomes

Authentication determination:

  • Authenticated - Student clearly understands and produced the work
  • Concerns - Some doubts remain; may require additional evidence
  • Not authenticated - Significant doubts; misconduct referral

Mark adjustment: Strong viva performance may result in uplift:

  • +5 marks - Good demonstration of understanding
  • +10 marks - Strong demonstration with additional insights
  • +15 marks - Exceptional performance (rare)

Disagreement protocol: If panel members cannot agree, a second viva with a different panel may be convened.

Future feature: Viva assessment form - capture authentication decision and any mark adjustment

Topic Coordination (September)
  • Collect topics from staff - Request project definitions before deadline
  • Compile database by subject group - Organise topics for student browsing
  • Review topic quality - Ensure definitions are clear and appropriately scoped
Future feature: Topic collection workflow - automated request and tracking
Proposal Approval (T2 Week 6-7)
  • Review proposals against criteria - Check feasibility, scope, and clarity
  • Track C verification - Confirm external organisation details and IP arrangements
  • Approve, reject, or request revision
  • Rejection pathway - Rejected proposals default to Track A (pre-approved topics)
Future feature: Proposal approval workflow - review interface with approval/rejection tracking
Allocation (T2 Week 8-9)
  • Match supervisors - Based on expertise and workload
  • Assign internal examiners - Ensure appropriate expertise and no conflicts
  • Balance workload - Distribute across available staff
  • Notify all parties - Inform students, supervisors, and IEs of allocations
Future feature: Allocation notification - automated emails to students and staff
Tier Assignment (Post-submission)
  • Review evidence trails - Meeting notes, flags, traffic light status
  • Assign tiers based on:
    • Tier 1 - Clean evidence trail; no concerns
    • Tier 2 - Some flags or inconsistencies; enhanced scrutiny
    • Tier 3 - Significant concerns; intensive authentication
  • Form viva panels - Two independent examiners per student (not Supervisor or IE)
  • Provide evidence summaries - Compile relevant information for panels
Future feature: Tier assignment system - evidence review and tier allocation interface
Escalation and Misconduct

Red flag response:

  • Receive notification within 48 hours of flag being raised
  • Review evidence and determine appropriate action
  • May convene meeting with supervisor to discuss concerns
  • Document all decisions and rationale

Formal intervention:

  • Meeting with student if concerns are substantive
  • Additional supervision or support may be mandated
  • Tier assignment adjusted based on outcome

Misconduct referral:

  • Initiated when evidence suggests academic misconduct
  • Follow university misconduct procedures
  • Mark withheld pending investigation outcome
Future feature: Case management - track escalations and misconduct referrals

Creating Project Definitions

Well-structured project definitions help students find suitable projects and set clear expectations. Each definition should include:

Field Purpose
Title A summary of the project's topic in a single, accessible sentence
Aim A more precise statement of the project's purpose extending the title with detail such as scope
Objectives A series of intermediate milestones building up to the delivery of the main aim
Deliverables A statement of the final target outputs from the project
Research Questions Questions the project sets out to answer, related to the state of the art
Methodology Methods the student will apply in delivering the project
Evaluation Specific methods/approaches for evaluating project results
Prerequisites Background knowledge or skills required
References Academic references providing context for the project

For more detailed guidance on structuring project definitions, see bdavison.napier.ac.uk/projects.

Quick Actions
Staff Login
Quick Links
Student Contact

When students view your published projects, they can contact you directly via the email address on your account, or an alternative email if you specify one in the project definition.

Future Features

The following features are planned for future implementation:

  • PDT meeting notes capture
  • Proposal feedback forms
  • Supervision meeting notes system
  • Joint Marker Recommendation submission
  • Traffic light status tracking
  • Flag system for concerns
  • Tier assignment interface
  • Viva assessment forms
  • Automated notifications