Quality Manual
 

Progression review of research students

This page sets out the progression review process which applies to research degree students in all years of their programme, including basic elements, possible outcomes and appeals. Its content is relevant to staff and postgraduate researchers registered for level 7 (masters) and level 8 (doctoral) degrees across all of the UK, China and Malaysia campuses.

Search the manual

 
Please be aware that due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, some of the content on this page has now been updated as part of the University's mitigation efforts. Where this applies, it will be clearly indicated within each section below.

1. Introduction

Includes: basic principles; progression review activities throughout the year; progression monitoring; internal assessors; maximum time for completion of thesis examination

All postgraduate researchers (PGRs) registered on research degrees lasting more than one year full-time or two years part-time (eg MPhil or Professional Doctorates but not MRes etc) are subject to progression monitoring and formal review.

The basic principles of Progression Review are common to all postgraduate researchers  (PGRs) and all years of programmes who go through such a review. 

In all cases, the purpose of progress monitoring and formal review is to ensure that the progress towards meeting the required outcomes at each Stage is sufficient to ensure achievement of the doctoral (level 8) or masters (level 7) outcomes to the required standard, and completion of the thesis examination (including any viva voce examination) within the period of registered study.

For more information about the UNQF, please consult the following:

University of Nottingham Qualifications Framework

Relevant adjustments may need to be made for PGRs studying away from the University or following programmes that involve a significant taught element.

Part-time students

For part-time PGRs, all the processes for the progress review will happen every other year rather than yearly and periods of time quoted should be doubled. 

Basic principles of PGR progression monitoring and review

Progress monitoring begins through regular supervisory meetings when the PGR first registers on the programme. These recorded meetings continue throughout the period of registered study and thesis completion period, until thesis submission. Formal records of these meetings should be made, agreed and held securely in the PGR’s supervision records. Progression review information should be given to the PGR at Induction and then reinforced throughout their registered study.

For more information about responsibilities of the supervisor, please consult the following:

Responsibilities of the Supervisor

In-year progress meetings with supervisory teams can be formal, or informal, one-to-one or in a group, as is appropriate for the timing and progress of the PGR. A minimum of 10 documented meetings must be held per year (6 per year for part-time PGRs). 

For the recommended steps and process in planning for PGR Progression Review, please consult the following:

PGR Progression Review consists formal assessment of progress against the doctoral (or other relevant published outcomes) through several components.

    • Records of progress recorded in the required minimum number of regular supervisory meetings conducted regularly throughout the period of registered study, including information on: agreed research plans and milestones; progress made; any problems encountered and solutions proposed, and any other pertinent information. As these records form part of the formal assessment of PGR progression at Progression Review, they should contain a record of, for example, any extenuating circumstances, or any concerns about progress, or reasons for congratulation on success. Records of progress meetings should be available to all the team members, including PGR and all supervisors. 

For more information about responsibilities of the supervisor, please consult the following:

Responsibilities of the Supervisor

  • Formal Progression Review is assessed against progress towards meeting the required outcomes at each stage of study in the programme, usually through a written report; 
  • Completion of mandatory elements such as training and development, taught modules, laboratory rotations, career planning, engagement with professional development opportunities and career planning are also reviewed.  

The published criteria for Stage1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 progression are badged against the outcomes in the University of Nottingham Qualification Framework and the QAA doctoral outcomes. They are designed to enable assessors to take a consistent and transparent approach in determining the progress of PGRs. 

For more information about Assessment criteria for Progression Reviews, please consult the following:

Formal assessment of Progression at Stages 1 and 2 requires a meeting involving an Internal Assessor and should be held as an in-person event (or virtual). The School may appoint more than one Internal Assessor if appropriate, for example if the research is inter/transdisciplinary in nature. In such instances all Internal Assessors should be actively engaged in all aspects of the formal Progression Review. 

The Internal Assessor(s) should be appointed at least 3 months before the formal Progression Review begins. It is strongly recommended that where possible the Internal Assessor(s) are involved in the Stage 3 Progression Review for continuity and quality assurance purposes. The Stage 3 Progression Review can be conducted by the supervisory team but should not be conducted by a single supervisor.

For more information on role, responsibilities and appointment of the Internal Assessor, please consult the following:

Role and responsibilities of the Internal Assessor

Progression Reviews at Stages 1 and 2 should use the core Review elements below, and may include additional methods of assessment deemed necessary by Schools, to assess progress to date against the Stage appropriate published criteria . When including additional elements Schools must pay due regard to PGR and Assessor assessment load.  

If progress is not sufficient to meet the necessary outcomes within the period of registered study, the aim must be to meet these, and complete the research and thesis examination within a maximum of three years (for MPhil) or four years from first registration (for PhD, MVM,MD,MVS, professional doctorate) irrespective of programme duration. This maximum duration can only be changed in individual cases if the PGR holds an award with terms and conditions that vary this maximum period and the School approves the arrangement. Note that some awards may have a maximum duration of less than four years. 

 

2.  Timing of formal Progression Review and stages of PGR study

Includes: for all PGRs; different stages of study; purpose and timing of formal progression reviews; four year PhD programmes with a substantial taught, training and development or laboratory rotation element in Stage 1; recommended latest timings for stage 3 progression review. 

Formal assessment of progression through the Progression Review may take place at a time most appropriate for the PGR and/or be aligned with a School annual process. The Stage of PGR study is defined by their achievement and development but will generally align to year of study.  Schools can make adjustments to local progression timing, arrangements and requirements so long as the minimum elements of progression review are in place and completed by the required deadline for the PGR.
It is however strongly recommended that preparations for the formal Progression Review assessment should begin before the PGR has completed nine months of each Stage / year of study and that reviews are held around the nine-month period. This is to allow for any supported improvement of progress and re-assessment to be completed within the year of study.
For non-doctoral PGRs (e.g. MPhil), Stage 1 progression review will usually align with year 1, and confirms satisfactory progress towards the UNQF level 7 outcomes. Stage 2  progression review indicates progress sufficient to allow thesis submission within 6 months. The Stage 2 progression review therefore happens at least 6 months before the end of the period of registered study. 

For more information about the UNQF, please consult the following:

University of Nottingham Qualifications Framework

For doctoral PGRs on 3 and 3.5 year programmes:
During their first year of registration, the status of doctoral PGRs as PhD candidates is probationary. Stage 1 progression review will usually occur within the first year of study, confirms progress against the published criteria , and is also the point of confirmation of PhD registration status. Stage 2 progression review will usually take place in the second year of registered study and confirms sufficient progress to support probable achievement of doctoral outcomes within the next 12-18 months. Stage 3 progression review confirms a level of progress and achievement that shows that the PGR should achieve the doctoral outcome within 6 months (see the latest timings for Stage 3 progression review below). 

For more information about Assessment criteria for Progression Reviews, please consult the following:

For doctoral PGRs on 4 year programmes:
For 4 year doctoral programmes containing a large component of mandatory elements in the first year of registered study, such as substantial training and development requirements, taught modules, or laboratory / research project rotations, Stage 1 progression review may occur at the most appropriate time for the PGR depending on the programme, but must take place before the end of the second year. Recommendations on the registration of such PGRs on the PhD may be made at an earlier stage (e.g. after one year or 18 months), depending on the progress of the research alongside the mandatory taught or training elements of the programme. 
For PGRs in doctoral training programmes or centres for doctoral training, where stage 1 Progression Review is managed through the DTP/CDT. 
The DTP/CDT programme is responsible for ensuring the PGR understands the process and timing of the stage 1 review, and how their work in year 1 enables them to achieve the required outcomes . Thereafter, in stages 2 and 3, the supervisors and School are primarily responsible for ensuring PGRs are prepared and fully understand the process and requirements of Progression Review. 

For more information about Assessment criteria for Progression Reviews, please consult the following:

Progression review after this takes place as described for the 3 / 3.5 year programmes. 
 Progression review - Stages
   MPhil 
 PhD
 

Normal timing

 Purpose  Normal timing   Purpose

 Stage 1                         

 Year 1                                                                                            Confirmation of sufficient progress towards level 7 outcomes, meeting outcome within 12 months  Year 1/Year 2 [depending on length and structure of programme] Confirmation of sufficient progress and PhD registration
 Stage 2  Year 2                                                                                    Confirmation of sufficient progress for thesis submission within 6 months Year 2/Year 3 [depending on length and structure of programme] Confirmation of sufficient progress to meet doctoral outcomes within 12-18 months
 Stage 3     Year 3/Year 4 Confirmation of sufficient progress for thesis submission within 6 months

 

The latest time at which Stage 3 progression review (confirmation that doctoral outcomes can be achieved within 6 months) are in the table below.

 Programme of study Recommended latest timing of Stage 3 Progression Review 
PhD: Three years (36 months) 30 months after initial registration, normally 18 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.
PhD: Three years, 6 months (42 months) 36 months after initial registration, normally 24 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.
PhD: Four years 42 months after initial registration, normally 30 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.
Integrated PhD 42 months after initial registration, normally 30 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.
1 year + 3 years (MRes/MSc + PhD) 30 months after initial registration, normally 18 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.

PhD: 4 years + 1 year extended training opportunities

42 months after initial registration, normally 30 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.
MPhil (normal expected period of study 2 years) 6 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.
 

3.  Minimum elements of Stage 1 & 2 Progression Review

Includes: for all PGRs; for doctoral PGRs undergoing confirmation of registration; four year PhD programmes with a substantial taught, training and development or laboratory rotation element in Stage 1

Progression Reviews at Stages 1 and 2 should use the core Review elements below to assess progress to date against the Stage appropriate published criteria, to enable the PGR to demonstrate that they have achieved the required outcomes at each Stage.  

For more information about Assessment criteria for Progression Reviews, please consult the following:

When including any additional assessment methods, Schools must pay due consideration to assessment load and the balance of PGR workload for Progression Review against their ongoing research progress. It should not be expected that PGRs stop research / thesis writing in order to devote time to the Progression Review. 

Schools must ensure that the following elements are included in their formal Progression Review process:

For PGRs undergoing Stage 1 and Stage 2 Progression Review:

  • A formal summative assessment of PGR progress to date. This is assessed against published criteria/outcomes by:

a) a written report by the PGR on their progress to date and 

b) through questioning at a meeting between the PGR and the Internal Assessor and (if the School wishes, other staff who have not previously been closely associated with the PGR's work). 

The meeting should have a clear agenda. It should begin with a reinforcement of what the meeting will cover and include opportunities to discuss progress to date, the PGR’s future research plans, and the extent of progress towards the doctoral outcomes, the wider research environment and its suitability to support the planned research, and the supervision the PGR receives. 

    • Plans for completion and submission of the thesis within the period of registered study, and completion of thesis examination in a maximum of 4 years, bearing in mind that PGRs do not have a dedicated ‘writing up’ period, and thesis writing should be integrated alongside the research. 
    • Independent written assessments from the Internal Assessor and supervisory team* on the PGR’s performance to date. The Internal Assessor’s report should include information on PGR performance, progress, attendance and engagement throughout the period of study. Any problems encountered or required support identified by the PGR in discussion or in their written report should be noted in the Internal Assessor’s report, where appropriate. The report from the supervisory team should include any concerns with PGR progress to date, successes or problems encountered or necessary mitigations required to maintain progress. 
    • Formative feedback on how improvements might be made on both written report and the meeting from the Internal Assessor. This can be verbal feedback at the end of the meeting. 
    • Confirmation that the required minimum number of supervision sessions has taken place, that the records of supervision meetings are available, and that these record the progress made to date and highlight any problems encountered.
    • The Internal Assessor should be able to access evidence that the PGR has attended any modules and passed any assessments that form a compulsory part of their research programme.
    • The content of any report submitted to a PGR’s sponsor, if they have one, should also be considered as part of the review. 
In all these processes, the principal supervisor can represent the supervisory team but in doing so is expected to consult as necessary with other team members.

 

Note that the Progression Reviews should also consider and take into account any significant research and/or personal impacts that have /may have significant disruptive impacts on research progress. Consideration of this should include information about how the PGR has managed to progress their research in light of any impacts, the extent to which they have mitigated these impacts and how they have had to change their research plans and activities, and goals/milestones accordingly.

After the meeting with the PGR, the Internal assessor and supervisors should share their independent reports with the PGR for their comment and response. If the likely recommendation is for reassessment, or if there is disagreement in outcome, the reports should be shared in a meeting with the independent assessor and/or the supervisors so the PGR has support when this is communicated. This can be during the verbal feedback after the meeting. 

In light of the meeting, and discussion of the independent reports and the PGR response, the Internal Assessor and the principal supervisor should agree a joint recommendation on the outcome to the Head of School. The agreed joint recommendation will be recorded in the PGR’s record. 

 

4. Elements of Stage 3 Progression Review

Includes: consideration of progress to thesis submission; minimum elements

The Stage 3 Progression Review should determine whether the PGR is likely to meet the doctoral outcomes within the next six months. It should include a detailed consideration of progress, including the progress made with writing the thesis, and a plan to ensure that the thesis is submitted within the period of registered study. If this is thought to be unachievable at Stage 3 Progression Review (for PGRs on 36 or 42 month programmes), plans must be made for degree completion, including thesis examination, within a maximum of four years from initial registration.

It is strongly recommended that the Internal Assessor is also involved in the Stage 3 Progression Review for continuity and quality assurance purposes.

In addition to the minimum elements of Stages 1 & 2 Progression Review, Stage 3 Progression Review should include the following elements:

  • a detailed evaluation of how the work to date shows that the PGR has already or will meet /achieve the doctoral outcomes. 
  • plans for the PGR will meet achieve any doctoral outcomes that are not yet met, showing how the these will be met within six months; 
  • detailed information on the progress made on writing the thesis, and plans for its completion (noting that the thesis is expected to be completed within the period of registered study, and a detailed plan for thesis completion and submission). 
  • discussion of any exceptional circumstances, unforeseen problems and mitigations that have been necessary to ensure progression and timely completion

Note that if the required outcomes relating to the generation of empirical novel research contributions are unlikely to be met within six months, the PGR is unlikely to be able to progress to thesis submission and examination within 6 months.  In this case, the internal assessor and supervisors should consider the recommendation that the PGR does not progress and whether an exceptional extension to the period of registered study is required. 

After the meeting with the PGR, the Internal assessor and supervisors should share their independent reports with the PGR for their comment and response. If the likely recommendation is for reassessment, or if there is disagreement in outcome, the reports should be shared in a meeting with the independent assessor and/or the supervisors so the PGR has support when this is communicated. This can be during the verbal feedback after the meeting. 

In light of the meeting, and discussion of the independent reports and the PGR response, the Internal Assessor and the principal supervisor should agree a joint recommendation on the outcome to the Head of School. The agreed joint recommendation will be recorded in the PGR’s record. 

 

5. The possible outcomes of formal Progression Review

Includes: outcomes where assessors agree; recommendations on progression; circumstances and outcomes when progression is not recommended

Outcomes where the internal assessor and supervisory teams agree:

1. Progression to the next stage of study is recommended. 

In order to make this recommendation there should be records that the PGR has been progressing according to plans throughout the year. Progress must be confirmed as satisfactory in the meeting through assessment against the stage-specific criteria, taking into account discipline / field specific differences in doctoral study and structure. The supervisors and assessors should agree that the PGR will be able to meet the doctoral outcomes in the required time. 

Outcomes of approved progression to the next stage of study are:

a) For stage 1 PhD PGRs, confirmation of their status as PhD candidates.

b) For stage 1 and 2 progression, re-registration on the same degree in the following academic session.

c) For all stages, provided the PGR agrees, the assessors can recommend a transfer of registration to another, usually higher, degree (e.g. from MPhil to PhD). In this instance, a transfer form must be completed. If a transfer is recommended at stage 3, and the review did not involve an internal assessor, then an interview with the internal assessor is required to confirm the transfer to the new degree. 

d) For stage 3 PGRs whose progress is satisfactory but who are likely to submit the thesis after the end of their period of registered study, the recommendation will be that on completion of the period of registered study they enter Thesis Pending. 

e) For PGRs in Stage 3 who are achieving the necessary progress to meet the doctoral outcomes by the planned date, the recommendation will be maintenance of current status up to the end of their period of registered study. 

For recommendations d) and e), the PGR must have met the requirements for the minimum period of registered study, completed the empirical research and have not exceeded four years of study. 

2. Progression is not recommended and progress is required to be reassessed. 

For this recommendation there will be information in the supervision records that the PGR and supervisory teams have discussed the reasons for unsatisfactory progress, and that attempts have been made to support the PGR to improve. The progress to date should have been assessed in the meeting with the internal assessor against the stage-specific criteria and found to be insufficient, taking into account discipline / field specific differences in doctoral study structure. The internal assessor and supervisory teams’ independent reports should agree that the PGR requires additional time and support to be able to demonstrate their ability to progress to the next stage at reassessment. In these cases, supervisory records must be kept, and should be available for the re-assessment. 


a) Stage 1 PGRs on a supportive or corrective plan of action remain on probationary status until confirmation of Stage 1 progression. 

b) At all Stages PGRs are registered/re-registered for PhD in the following academic session with an agreed plan of supportive or corrective action in place for a limited time. 

c) For Stage 3 PGRs who have made insufficient progress in research and writing to allow them to meet the doctoral outcomes within the following 6 months, the assessors may recommend a reassessment after a period of up to 3 months. There should be a plan for supportive corrective action during this time to support the PGR to meet the doctoral outcomes by the end of the period of registered study. 

d) For Stage 3 PGRs who have made insufficient progress in the research to allow them  to meet the doctoral outcomes and submit the thesis for examination within the following 6 months, the assessors may recommend an exceptional extension to the PGR’s period of registration for up to one further year. Reassessment for ability to progress to thesis  should be done after no more than 6 months. Thesis completion and examination are still expected within the four year maximum period.

e) The maximum number of Progression Reviews for a PGR at any stage is limited to two. If an Exceptional Circumstances claim is submitted and upheld, the Progression Review may be repeated as a First Sit.

3. Progression is not recommended  - suggested change to registration status.

All Stages: With the agreement of the PGR and on recommendation in the joint report, transfer of registration to another degree (e.g. from PhD to MPhil, or MPhil to MRes). In this instance, re-assessment of progress is not required and a transfer form must be completed. 

The reasons for a recommendation for reassessment or registration on another degree must be explained to the PGR as soon as possible. 

In cases of referral for re-assessment, the PGR must have the opportunity to discuss the decision with the Internal Assessor and the supervisory team. If necessary, the PGR should be referred to the SPSA, Senior Tutor or other appropriate welfare support officer. The supervisory team should offer the PGR support in addressing the outcome of the review, and if necessary, in producing their response to the assessment in the reports.

 

6. Resolution of disagreement on Progression Review recommendations

Includes: process to be followed to reach resolution on the recommendation for progression; timeline for resolution. 

If the independent reports from the supervisory team and the Independent Assessor(s) disagree on the recommended outcome of the Progression Review, the following process should be followed.

 The PGR should be referred to the supervisors, SPSA, Senior Tutor or other appropriate welfare support officer for support in addressing the outcome of the review, depending on where disagreement lies, and the required support. They should have the opportunity to discuss the Review with the supervisory team and / or Internal Assessor(s). They should have support in producing their response to the assessment either from the supervisors or other member of the PGR support team. The PGR should receive the feedback from the review and be given an appropriate time to produce their response.

1. If the Internal Assessor recommends progression but the supervisory team does not. 

The independent and joint reports, and the PGR’s response, should be shared with the Head of School or delegate. The Head of School may call a meeting of the internal assessor, supervisors and PGR to discuss the case. The Head of School will then make a decision based on the information in the reports and from the discussion as to whether the PGR should progress, or be referred for reassessment. 

 

The Head of School must consider whether delegation of this task to another person, such as an experienced PGR supervisor/assessor, the PGR Director or SPSA is preferable to ensure an an independent perspective on the decision. 

 

2. If the supervisory team recommends progression but the Internal Assessor does not. 

The supervisory team should set up a meeting for discussion of the proposed outcome to which the internal assessor; the PGR should also be invited and have made their response to the independent reports. The group should attempt to resolve the outcome by discussion. If there is information that is relevant to the discussion that was not available to the Internal Assessor in the Progression Review documentation and/or meeting and that might affect the judgement of progress, such as extenuating circumstances, this should be made available in the discussions. If agreement can be reached, then the recommendation will follow the process in Section 5.

If agreement on the outcome cannot be resolved through discussion, the case should be referred to the Head of School as in 1 above.

Such discussions should be held in a timely manner, aiming to reach a resolution and recommended outcome within 1 month of the Progression review meeting. 

 

7. Requirements for Progression Review re-assessment and outcomes

Includes: reassessment of progress; support for PGRs

If progress needs to be reassessed at any stage, the PGRs must be given detailed information on the goals and requirements for improved performance, an appropriate and defined timeframe in which to meet these, and support in achieving the required improvement. They should also be made aware of the possible outcomes of the reassessment process.  

The format for re-assessment will be the same as for the initial Progression Review. The PGR should update their written report, focussing specifically on how they have met the agreed objectives. A plan for maintained progress should also be produced and considered at the re-assessment meeting. 

Stage 1 PGRs are re-registered on a continued probationary basis until re-assessment. PGRs at stages 2 and 3 are re-registered/continue to be registered for the PhD until re-assessment. 

When a PGR is referred for reassessment, the following information must be provided to the PGR as soon as possible:

  • Feedback on the performance in all aspects of the Progression Review, including clear detailed guidance on the requirements for improvement, with SMART objectives/goals and/or milestones;
  • Explicit information on the potential outcomes of re-assessment;
  • An explicit time/date for the re-assessment of progress, which should give sufficient time for the required progress to be made. Normally this would not be more than three months after the original progression review. In exceptional circumstances and with the approval of QSC, the time given for improvement for PGRs at stages 1 and 2 may be up to six months; 
  • The PGR must receive appropriate academic support and guidance to support them to achieve the required improvements. Academic support is particularly important for PGRs in progressing to stage 3, to ensure that PGRs get on track to meet the required outcomes, and are prepared for the completion and examination of the thesis; 
  • If necessary and appropriate, the PGR should be referred for support outside the supervisory team, e.g welfare or disability support teams.  
 

8. Outcomes of Progression Review re-assessment

Includes: the possible outcomes from re-assessment following satisfactory progress; outcomes on unsatisfactory progress; required evidence of progress. 

If the internal assessor and the supervisors disagree on the recommendation after  reassessment, they should follow the process for resolution. This should include the Head of School irrespective of where the disagreement in recommendation lies. 

 

The Head of School may delegate this task to an appropriate member of the PGR support team such as the PGR Director or SPSA. 

If performance in the Progression Review re-assessment meets the stated criteria, and the required improvement has been made as agreed by the PGR and assessors, the recommendation by the School to the University should be that:

 

a) For stage 1 doctoral PGRs, confirmation of their status as doctoral candidates. 

b) For stages 1 and 2 progression, re-registration on the same degree in the following academic session.

c) For stage 3 PGRs whose progress is satisfactory but who are likely to submit the thesis after the end of their period of registered study, the recommendation will be that on completion of the period of registered study they enter Thesis Pending. 

d) For stage 3 PGRs who are on track to achieve the necessary progress to meet the doctoral outcomes by the planned date, and move to thesis submission, the recommendation would be maintenance of current status up to the end of their period of registered study at which point they would, if necessary, enter Thesis Pending until thesis submission. 

For recommendations c) and d), the PGR must have met the requirements for the minimum period of registered study, completed the research and have not exceeded four years of study. A recommendation for registration for a higher degree cannot be made as a result of progression re-assessment.

If performance in the re-assessment does not meet the criteria and the required progress / improvement has not been achieved as agreed by the supervisory team and internal assessor, the recommendation by the School to the University should be that, for all PGRs at all stages

Either 

a) the PGR is required to re-register on another, usually lower degree (e.g PhD to MPhil, MPhil to MRes). 

Or 

b) the PGR’s registration is terminated. 


Termination of registration can only be recommended when supported by evidence that the PGR has received written warnings on lack of progress during the period of study, and the period of supported improvement. 

In these cases, all Supervisory records and Progression Review paper work must be submitted to QSC for approval.

 

9. Considerations of Covid-19 or other major impacts 

Where the recommendations to extend the PGR's registration status relate to research or personal impacts resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, the PGR can confirm the need for an extension to the four year maximum period, by either following the extension to the registered period of study, or the extension to Thesis Pending procedure, depending on whether further research is deemed necessary or not.

Other significant impacts on PGR progression, either personal or on the research, such as major disruption in access to facilities, should also be taken into account in Progression Review. When circumstances are out of the PGRs control, these should be considered fairly, with respect and consideration for the impact on the PGR. 

 

Forms and documentation

Includes: flowchart for annual review and submission; annual review forms; request to register for an additional period of study; request to transfer student

 
If you have any problems or queries relating to this page, please contact:

UNUK students Flag of United Kingdom 

Student Services

 
 
This content was last modified on 28 September 2022

Student Services

Portland Building, University of Nottingham
University Park
Nottingham, NG7 2RD

Contact us