# Introduction This manual concerns the module *Research Project 1* for students from the master programme *Brain and Cognitive Sciences* (MBCS) at the University of Amsterdam (UvA). This manual was written to inform all involved parties about the requirements of the research project and about their role, whether student, supervisor, assessor or examiner. If you are not familiar with the structure of MBCS, please read the [[Introduction to the Capstones]] first. >[!note] >Students from *Brain and Cognitive Sciences* form a multidisciplinary group and enter research projects at a wide range of hosting institutes. Some of them could work at logic departments, others might deal with fMRI data analysis and again others would do their work at neurobiology labs. These different hosts will emphasize different skills, but all of them prepare the students for work as a researcher. *Research Project 1* is one of the capstones of the programme, in which students acquire practical research experience and learn to work and think independently within a scientific environment. They perform experimental work (which may include data collection, or alternatively analyse data that was already obtained prior to the start of their project), write a technical report to share their findings and present their experience in the lab environment. ## Intended learning outcomes During _Research Project 1_, the student is trained to reach eight intended learning outcomes, each of which contributes to a particular (set of) exit qualification(s) of the programme as a whole. | Intended learning outcome | Exit qualification | | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | | The student can perform experimental work in a research project in an accurate and timely manner | Graduate can manage projects in an effective and adaptive manner | | The student can report about the research project, following norms and standards in their field of expertise | Graduate can present research results, orally and in written form, to the scientific field and (extra-) academic partners | | The student can analyse empirical data within a research project in brain and cognitive sciences | Graduate can correctly perform experiments, correctly analyse data and correctly interpret results | | The student can identify ethical considerations about the research project | Graduate has understanding of the ethical aspects and best practices of research in cognitive science, psychology and neuroscience | | The student can demonstrate ownership of the research project | Graduate can independently carry out research cognitive science, psychology and/or neuroscience | | The student can demonstrate a curious, open-minded and self-directed attitude | Graduate can collaborate with others in mono- or multidisciplinary research teams | | The student can show self-reliance in the collection and analysis of academic literature that helps understand the context of the research project. | Graduate understands recent insights in the relationships between brain, cognition and behaviour | | The student can reflect on personal growth as a researcher | Graduate can reflect on responsibilities, capabilities and limitations as a researcher | To assess these learning objectives, the student is assessed on three separate aspects using a 1 - 10 grading scale: 1. Experimental work (40% of the final mark) 2. Oral presentation of the project (10% of the final mark) 3. Technical report on the project (50% of the final mark) In addition, the student submits a reflection to the programme, which is graded pass/fail. See the [[Research Project 1 Manual#Grading|section on grading]] for more information on assessment. ## Size of the project *Research Project 1* has a size of 26 EC. As 1 EC corresponds to 28 hours of work, the duration of *Research Project 1* can be considered as listed in Table 1. **Table 1** - Workload of *Research Project 1* | Project size (EC) | Workload (hours) | Fulltime equivalent | | :---------------: | :--------------: | :---------------------------: | | 26 | 728 | 17 weeks (just over 4 months) | Note that full-time equivalence corresponds to a workload of 1.5 EC (42 hours) per week, which is more than a common work week. It is fine to spread the project out more. The MBCS curriculum leaves ample space for *Research Project 1* between the start of block 4 and the start of the annual Summer School. ## Timeline of the project *Research Project 1* goes through the following timeline: 1. The student (with or without help of the programme) seeks out a hosting lab to reach an agreement about placement. The project, as well as its supervision and assessment, need to satisfy constraints outlined in this document. 2. Once the hosting lab and the student have reached an agreement about the nature and conditions of the research project during an [[Intake Meeting]], the student registers a *Research Project 1* via Datanose and adds the work agreement as a comment attachment. A project *can* be registered within a month after its actual starting date, but we strongly recommend registering the project one month *before* its actual starting date. For more information: see [[Registering projects]]. 3. The supervisor and internal grader guide the student in preparing a research proposal, that outlines the activities that the student will perform during the 4 - 4.5 months of the project. Typically, the student collects or analyses data in the context of a larger project from the hosting lab. The student is supposed to read relevant literature about the subject of investigation and the required research methods. This results in a research proposal, which the student submits again via the [[Datanose project page]], within one month after the starting date that was entered when registering the project. This plan is reviewed by both the MBCS programme coordinator and the examiner of the project. 4. In the subsequent months, the student will acquire and/or analyse data relevant to the project, learning from ongoing feedback from the supervisor. At some convenient time halfway through the project, the student will schedule a [[Midterm Evaluation]] with the supervisor and the internal grader, to discuss how the project is going. This is a moment for mutual feedback: both parties can indicate how the project is working out for them. For the student, the Midterm Evaluation is a formative feedback moment. 5. In the months after the Midterm Evaluation, less ongoing feedback should be necessary and the supervisor can appraise student performance in terms of experimental work. 6. In the final month of the project (or earlier if the supervisor deems this appropriate), the student will draft a [[technical report]] on the conducted research, on which the supervisor provides feedback. This draft should be as definitive as possible, so that meaningful feedback can be given. The student may not submit multiple drafts. 7. Based on the feedback on this draft, the student will submit a final version to Datanose, which will be graded by both assessors. The student will also give an oral presentation (usually 20 to 30 minutes, plus 10 minutes Q&A, but this can be adapted to be in line with the mores of the hosting institute) about their project, during a meeting at which at least the internal assessor is present, but preferably in front of the research group. We recommend giving the presentation in the phase between draft report and final report, so that presentation feedback can also be used to finalise the report. 8. To close off the project, student, assessor and examiner (and optionally, the supervisor) meet for a final feedback meeting to discuss assessment. 9. The student then finalizes their project by submitting a response to the [reflection form](https://forms.cloud.microsoft/e/Sa0RR9byLt). This is a mandatory element, but not graded by the assessor or examiner. # Formal setup of the project ## Roles Each *Research Project 1* involves four different roles: 1. The **student** is the person who has ownership of the project and for whom the project is a learning experience 2. The **supervisor** is there to guide the student through the project and assist with the learning process by helping out to solve practical or theoretical difficulties, especially during the phase before the [[Midterm Evaluation]]. 3. The **assessor** is one of the people grading the work of the student 4. The **examiner** is distinct from the assessor, grades the work and is responsible for submitting the final mark for the project. Examiners also monitor the quality of assessment, which is why they need to satisfy specific constraints. Good practice is to have the assessor and the examiner be from different lab environments, so that there is one *internal grader*, who is positioned within the hosting lab and one *external grader* who is not. Either of these can in principle be labeled as examiner, as long as they meet the requirements set out below. ## Requirements There are constraints in place for who can play which role. - The supervisor can be a PhD candidate or a more senior researcher who works in the hosting research group. - The internal grader should be a researcher within the hosting research group who has a doctorate degree (PhD). It is possible for a single person to take on both the supervisor and internal assessor roles, as long as the requirements for the internal grader are met. - The external grader should be a researcher with a doctorate degree (PhD) from another group, who has relevant expertise (whether topic-wise or method-wise) to assess the final report that is written on the project. As mentioned above, one of the two graders is labelled examiner, and this examiner holds responsibility for the quality of assessment. The examiner needs to: 1. be a UvA employee 2. have a doctorate degree (PhD) 3. have basic teaching certification (BKO) or extensive experience grading MSc theses Table 2 gives a view of the requirements and responsibilities of the different roles. Please note that for each grader, the responsibilities depend on whether they are internal or external to the lab where the project is taking place. The internal grader has a better view of the student and will therefore grade more components. The responsibilities are described in more detail later. **Table 2** - Roles, requirements and responsibilities | **Role** | **Requirements** | **Responsibilities** | | | :--------------- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | | Daily Supervisor | <ul><li>Must be PhD candidate or a more senior researcher<li>Must be active in research group that hosts the research project</ul> | <ul><li>Assists in creating realistic project planning, corresponding to workload<li>Contact person for student questions<li>Provides feedback on overall performance and promotes scientific attitude<li>Joins midterm evaluation, together with student and internal grader<li>Provides feedback on the draft version of the research report</ul> | | | Internal grader | <ul><li>Is located in same lab/research group as supervisor<li>Holds a doctorate degree (PhD). <li>Can be same person as daily supervisor, as long requirements for both roles are met</ul> | <ul><li>Monitors student performance in correspondence with supervisor</li><li>Grades experimental work, presentation and final report<li>Joins the midterm evaluation and the final feedback meeting</ul> | | | External grader | <ul><li>Holds a doctorate degree (PhD)<li>Must have relevant domain knowledge to assess the final report (e.g. on the methodology or research topic)<li>Is not the same person as the internal grader </ul> | <ul><li>Grades final report</li></ul> | | | Examiner | <ul><li>Label given on Datanose to either the internal grader or the external grader<li>Must be employed at UvA (including AUMC, location AMC)</li><li>Must hold doctorate degree (PhD)<li>Must be approved by programme Examinations Board<li>Must have basic teaching certification (BKO) or extensive experience grading theses</ul> | <ul><li>Reviews and approves project proposal</li><li>Submits the final grade<li>Guarantees validity of the grade<li>On internal project: grades report, presentation and process<li>On external project: grades only the report</ul> | | | Assessor | <ul><li>Label given on Datanose to either the internal grader or the external grader<li>Must hold doctorate degree (PhD)<li>Is not the same person as the examiner</ul> | <ul><li>On internal project: grades only the report.<li>On external project: grades report, presentation and process</ul> | | >[!tip] Registering the roles on Datanose > When all roles are identified, the student registers the project on Datanose and should list the assessor and an examiner, as well as whether the project is done internally (in the lab of the examiner) or externally (in a lab elsewhere). It is important this is done correctly. If an examiner cannot be selected from the dropdown menu in Datanose, this means the specific examiner has not been approved by the Examinations Board yet. See the section [[Examiner]] for information on how to request such approval. Please make sure the intended examiner meets the requirements listed in Table 2. ## Responsibilities ### Supervisor tasks The tasks for the supervisor are listed in Table 3, together with an indication of how much time they take. **Table 3** - Supervisor tasks with indication of hours | Task | Hours | | :------------------------: | :----: | | Assist in project planning | 6 | | Contact person | 17 | | Ongoing feedback | 4 | | Feedback on draft report | 6 | | Miscellaneous | 11 | | **Total** | **44** | #### Assist in project planning In the first month of the project, the student develops a research proposal and submits this to the programme. This proposal should describe a project that can be performed in 4 - 4.5 months full-time. The project's goals should be relevant to brain and cognitive sciences. >[!note] > - Once the research proposal has been approved by programme and examiner, it is not possible to change the EC rewarded to the student upon succesful completion of the project. > - The student may be combining the Research Project with coursework, in which case the student is not available full-time. In such a case, the project is spread out over a longer time, to still warrant the 26 EC. #### Be contact for student questions The supervisor is the go-to person for the student, for any questions related to performing the research project. - At the start of the project, this means clarifying mutual expectations: what does the student want to learn and what does the supervisor hope to accomplish with the project? Also see: [[Intake Meeting]]. - During the research project, the supervisor should be available to discuss problems within a reasonable time frame. When absent due to illness or leave, the supervisor should ensure that there is somebody else available for pressing questions of the student. - At the same time, the **student** should display ownership of the project. This ownership is assessed at the end of the project. A good rule of thumb is for the supervisor to have at least one hour per week allotted to discussion with the student, either via a single meeting or via multiple short check-ins. #### Ongoing feedback The supervisor guides the student and provides constructive feedback on their performance, whether that's mastering techniques, understanding key concepts, reflecting on ethical considerations or other aspects of work as a scientist. This feedback is important to improve the skills and knowledge of the student, and to foster an overall academic attitude. If student and supervisor work closely together, then providing this feedback may happen quite naturally. If this is not the case, it is good to set out some time each month to discuss how things are going. One effective way to do this is by giving your opinion on where the students stands using the [[Grading Rubrics Research Project 1|grading rubric]] for *Research Project 1* and giving constructive, actionable criticism. Note that the project is split in two halves: the phase before the [[Midterm Evaluation]] in which feedback is more extensive, and the phase afterwards, in which the day-to-day performance of the student is appraised as preparation for assessment. #### Join Midterm Evaluation Halfway through the project, a formal (online) feedback meeting takes place between supervisor and student, together with the internal grader of the project. During this so-called [[Midterm Evaluation]], the three parties discuss all progress so far, as well as performance and mutual satisfaction about the internship. This is an important opportunity for all parties to review how things are going. #### Provide feedback on the draft version of the research report One month before the end of the project, the student will submit a draft version of the [[technical report]]. This is not done via the project portal on Datanose, but rather through personal communication. The draft version should be as complete as possible, to allow for effective feedback. The supervisor is expected to evaluate this draft report within a reasonable time frame and provide the student with constructive feedback. The student can use this feedback to submit a final version of the research report via the project portal on Datanose, where it will be graded by the assessor and examiner of the project. Some things to note: - If the project is suffering from delays, the draft need not be submitted one month before the registered ending date. What counts is the actual completion date of the project. - The reason the supervisor is assessing the draft, rather than the internal grader, is to clearly distinguish between supervision and assessment (and to avoid students optimising their work for a specific reader). In some cases, supervisor and internal grader are a single person and that distinction can no longer be made. --- ### Internal grader tasks The internal grader is expected to spend about four hours on the research project, distributed across a number of tasks. #### Monitor the project It is good practice to monitor the project, either via occassional check-ins with the supervisor or with the student. This is especially important to be able to assess the experimental work, as it might otherwise not be clear what the performance of the student is like. #### Join midterm evaluation Halfway through the project, a formal (online) feedback meeting takes place between supervisor and student, together with the internal grader of the project. During this so-called [[Midterm Evaluation]], the three parties discuss all progress so far, as well as performance and mutual satisfaction about the internship. This is an important opportunity for all parties to review how things are going. #### Grade experimental work, presentation and final report The internal grader is expected to grade all three assessment forms: the experimental work, the oral presentation and the technical report, using the [[Grading Rubrics Research Project 1|respective grading rubrics]]. These rubrics can be filled on the Datanose project portal when the time for assessment has come. #### Discuss the final grade Before fully registering the grade, a feedback meeting between internal grader, external grader and student can clarify the assessment and discuss the main findings. --- ### External grader tasks The external grader is expected to spend about four hours on the research project, grading the final report and in rare cases being available for an 'outside view' during the project. #### Discuss and register the final grade Before fully registering the grade via Datanose, a feedback meeting between internal grader, external grader and student can clarify the assessment and discuss the main findings. --- ### Examiner tasks 'Examiner' is a label given to either the internal or external grader and tasks the respective person with a quality control role for assessment. In practice, this comes down to a number of tasks. #### Reviews project proposal One month into the project, the student submits a research proposal via [www.datanose.nl](www.datanose.nl/#yourprojects) and once that plan has been approved by the programme, the examiner will be asked to review it. In this process, the examiner is asked to judge the following: - Is the planning of the project feasible for a master student? - Is the design of the study appropriate given the research question and hypotheses? - Is the plan of the student fitting for a master's level project? While reviewing the plan, it is possible to leave remarks that are visible to all parties involved in the project. #### Guarantee validity of the grade The examiner is expected to collect the grade(s) given by the assessor and to determine a final grade. This includes discussing the verdict with the assessor and establishing consensus if the first opinions about the final grade [[Grading Discrepancy|diverge by one grade point or more]]. In case of any doubts about the overall grade, the examiner can contact the MBCS programme coordinator for troubleshooting. Examples of such doubts may be: * The assessor and examiner have conflicting opinions about the written report * The (cross-validated) assessment of the report is very different from the assessment of the (non-validated) experimental work and/or presentation. #### Submit the final grade The examiner is expected to submit the final grade for registration via [www.datanose.nl](https://www.datanose.nl), using a link that is automatically e-mailed once the student has submitted the final report and assessment by both internal and external grader has been completed. #### Discuss and register the final grade Before fully registering the grade, a feedback meeting between assessor, examiner and student can clarify the assessment and discuss the main findings. --- ### Student tasks As a research master student, the student enrolled in *Research Project 1* is expected to take the lead on his or her project. While all decisions and plans should be made in collaboration with the supervisor, the student is expected to display ownership of the project. The perfomance level is enumerated (relatively abstractly) in the [[Grading Rubrics Research Project 1|grading rubrics of the project]]. The student is expected to meet agreements and deadlines set out in collaboration with supervisor, assessor(s) and the programme. These include setting up a work agreement during an [[Intake Meeting]] at the start, submitting documentation in time and scheduling the [[Midterm Evaluation]]. The important deadlines are listed in Table 4. **Table 4** - Important deadlines | What? | When? | Who? | | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Registering the project via [Datanose](https://www.datanose.nl/#yourprojects) | As soon as a complete work agreement is in place after the [[Intake Meeting]], ideally one month before the project starts | Student | | Submitting Research Proposal via [Datanose Projects](https://www.datanose.nl/#yourprojects) | Within one month of starting date | Student | | Reviewing the Research Proposal | Within two weeks after its submission | Programme and examiner | | [[Midterm Evaluation]] Meeting | Halfway through the project | Student, supervisor and internal grader (scheduled by student) | | Submit draft of research project | One month before ending date | Student sends draft, supervisor provides feedback | | Present research findings in presentation of 20-30 minutes | In the weeks before finish date | Student | | Submit final report via [Datanose Projects](https://www.datanose.nl/#yourprojects) | Project finish date | Student | | Grading | Within 20 working days after project completion | <ol> <li>The student submits the final report to Datanose.<li>The examiner will receive an e-mail notification to provide assessment. If the project is internal, the examiner will assess the report, presentation and experimental work. If the project is external, the examiner will only assess the final report.<li>Once the examiner has finished assessment, the assessor of the project receives a notification to provide assessment.<li>Once the assessor is done, the examiner will be asked to confirm the assessment. If the grades for the final report differ by one grade point or more, the examiner should reach out to the assessor to discuss the grading and seek consensus.<li>Once consensus is reached and the grade is confirmed by the examiner, supervisor and/or assessor meet with the student to provide feedback personally.<li>Once feedback has been given, the examiner confirms and then registers the grade on [Datanose](https://www.datanose.nl).</ol> | ### Submit a research proposal The student is expected to [[Registering projects|register the project]] before starting it. We recommend to finalise registration at least one month before the starting date of the project. After the starting date, the student has one month to prepare a research proposal that outlines the planning and goals of the project. Note that while it may not be possible to go through all phases of the empirical cycle in a single project, the students is expected to have significant experience with all the following aspects once both _Research Project 1_ and _Research Project 2_ are done: 1. Formulating research question/hypothesis 2. Experimental design 3. Collecting/reviewing literature 4. Data acquisition 5. Data analysis It is not always feasible to fit all these components into a single project. *Research Project 1* should focus on data acquisition and/or analysis, while *Research Project 2* should ideally cover the whole cycle. It is okay if only one of the two project covers data acquisition or experimental design. Generating synthetic data does **not** count as data acquisition. When submitting the research proposal, the student is asked to indicate which of these aspects are covered by the respective project. >[!note] >Please be aware as a student that the work you do as part of your research projects belongs to the larger organisation in which you are embedded. Even if you do not sign any non-disclosure agreements, the setup of your project, the results you obtain and any manuscripts you produce should be considered confidential until a relevant supervisor (usually the principal investigator of the group) has given you explicit approval to share particulars about the study you have been doing. This includes discussing the experimental design of your project without explicit approval, before the publication of the study. > ### Schedule Midterm Evaluation Meeting Halfway through the project, a formal (online) feedback meeting takes place between supervisor and student, together with the internal grader of the project. During this so-called [[Midterm Evaluation]], the three parties discuss all progress so far, as well as performance and mutual satisfaction about the internship. This is an important opportunity for all parties to review how things are going. ### Provide draft version of the research report One month before the end of the project, the student will submit a draft version of a technical report. This report should be written in a form that is appropriate to the field in which the research project takes place, and it should clearly convey the work that the student has done. The draft version should be as complete as possible, to allow for effective feedback. If the project is suffering from delays, the draft need not be submitted one month before the registered ending date, but can rather be submitted one month before the new expected completion date. >[!note] Formatting guidelines > >While you have discretion to adapt your work to the conventions in your field of choice, there are some formatting guidelines. See: [[Formatting and Publication Guidelines]] ### Present the Research Project orally At the end of the project, the student presents the work that was done in front of at least the internal assessor and supervisor, but preferably in front of the hosting group. During a 20-30 minute presentation, the student shows what the project was about and what the results have been and engages in a Q&A with the audience. This activity is assessed. It is recommended to hold the presentation between the draft stage of the report and the final submission, so that feedback from the presentation can in principle be used in the final report. ### Provide final report The student finalizes the Research Project by submitting a technical report. A template for such a report can be found [[Technical report|here]]. The report can be submitted via the [[Datanose project page]]. ### Reflect on the process After _Research Project 1_ (but not _Research Project 2_), the student is expected to submit a reflection on the project. This should be done once the grade has been processed. The reflection yields personal learning objectives for _Research Project 2_. The reflection form is [here](https://forms.cloud.microsoft/e/Sa0RR9byLt). It can only be accessed while logged in to a UvA account. # Grading Grading is based on three components: the experimental work, the final report on the project and the oral presentation on the project. Table 5 summarizes the different components, their relative contribution to the final grade and the minimum grade required per component. If a component is graded less than this minimum score, the project as a whole should be registered as 'NAV' (i.e. requirements not met). **Table 5** - Assessment forms | Component | Contribution to final grade | Graded by | Minimum grade | | | :---------------- | :-------------------------: | :-------------------------------------- | :-----------: | --- | | Experimental work | 40% | Internal assessor | 5.5 | | | Final report | 50% | Internal assessor and external assessor | 5.5 | | | Oral presentation | 10% | Internal assessor | 5.5 | | To grade the different components or to get a better idea about the expected level, please review the [[Grading Rubrics Research Project 1]]. The final report is graded by both the assessor and the examiner. Their grades are automatically averaged to arrive at a final score for the report, *except if the difference between their grades is more than or equal to 1 point*. In that case, the assessor and examiner are expected to discuss their considerations with each other and arrive at a consensus grade. If such consensus cannot be reached, the examiner should reach out to the programme via [email protected]. ## Submitting the grade Both the assessor and the examiner will receive an automatic e-mail once the student has submitted the final report to Datanose.nl. Through the link in this e-mail, they can grade the different components of the project. Once assessment is done, the examiner can then confirm the final grade, which is calculated as the weighted average of the average grades given by the assessors. Please note that the grade point difference between the two assessments of the final report should not be 1 or more. Upon confirmation of the grading, the examiner will be prompted with a grade registration form, available for digital signing using two-factor authentication. Please notice that the full workflow listed in the right hand of the Datanose page needs to be completed: that means first confirming the grade and then registering it. Upon registration of the grade (through digital signature or processing by the programme), the student is immediately informed about the end result. We therefore kindly ask examiner and assessor to meet with the student to provide feedback and grading **before** confirming and registering grades via Datanose. Please note that once grades are registered, they can no longer be edited. A rollback of the assessment form is only possible in case of too large a discrepancy between the two report grades. # Miscellaneous issues ## Credits and delays Also see: [[Project planning and delays]] The credits listed when registering the project are those rewarded to the student. In principle, students do not receive more credits for extra time they put into the project if it is running late. As such it is important that a realistic time plan is made at the beginning of the project, to avoid a (costly) study delay for the student. If a project exceeds the originally planned deadline by six months or more, the Examinations Board of the master’s programme may contact the internal assessor of the project for an explanation. At the discretion of the Examinations Board, an ongoing research project may be canceled. ## Insufficient performance As listed in table 5, there are minimum grades for all three assessment components. If a student receives final grades below these minimums, the project will be registered as ‘NAV’ (requirements not met) and the student will not be credited for the work. Given the large size of the Research Projects, failing one will lead to a sizable study completion delay for the student. This means that if it becomes a clear a student might be heading towards an insufficient mark, it is important to explicitly inform the student about this (e.g. during the Midterm Evaluation). This way the student can either adapt performance accordingly, or choose to end the research project prematurely. ## Resit and repair options At the halfway point of the research project, a Midterm Evaluation takes place that should establish the level of performance of the student and provide actionable feedback. The period after this Midterm Evaluation offers an opportunity for the student to improve where necessary. If the Midterm Evaluation indicates that student performance is subpar, to the extent that the student will fail without improvement, this should be clearly indicated. The second half of the project can then be used by the student as an opportunity to "repair". If performance remains too low, the student can be considered to have failed this "repair" opportunity. In exceptional cases, poor performance may only be noticed at a late stage. For example, the experimental work by a student might be in order, while the written report is wholly insufficient. In such cases, the student can be given the option to resubmit the written report as an option to repair. If this happens, the maximum grade that can be given for the report is a 6.0. ## Prematurely ending the Research Project If issues arise that jeopardize the success of the research project and that cannot be remediated by feedback or reaching consensus between supervisor, examiner and student, please contact the programme via [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]). The programme coordinator will meet with both the student and the daily supervisor (and, if appropriate, the examiner) to help decide on the best course of action. Termination of the research project is only possible in two cases: 1. If the student, supervisor and examiner mutually agree on it 2. If the Examinations Board of the programme has reviewed the situation and has decided that termination is appropriate. ## Late submission of the Research Project Plan The Research Project Plan serves two goals: 1. It allows the programme to review the suitability of a given project, i.e. whether the project fits with the learning objectives of the course module *Research Project 1*. 2. It prepares the student for learning effectively during the research project, by guaranteeing that research questions, experimental design and methods of analysis/interpretation are explicitly considered by the student at an early stage of the learning process. Both goals are served by timely submission of the proposal. In the case of goal 1, the possible scenario in which the programme rejects a proposed research project is extra costly for the student if the project has been ongoing for a relatively long time. In the case of goal 2, late submission may indicate that the student spent a relatively long time without clear plans or goals, which jeopardizes the learning process. Therefore, the Research Project Plan must be submitted within 20 working days (about a month) after the starting date of the project. If submitted more than two weeks late, the Examinations Board considers the use of time within the project to have been inefficient. The registered starting date of the project will then be shifted to six weeks before the submission date of the (complete) Research Project Plan Form. This will also shift the ending date of the project accordingly. Late submission of the Research Project Plan will not affect the grading of the research project, but the submission date of the final report cannot be before the ending date of the project. ## Delays in completing the Research Project In case the deadline for final submission as registered on Datanose is not going to be met by the student and the delay is more than one month, the student should inform the programme coordinator and the examiner and assessor of the Research Project, and supply the reasons for the delay. Based on this motivation, the examiner of the project may decide to set a new deadline together with the student or to request termination of the project. ## Registration date of the grade At the Faculty of Science at the University of Amsterdam, grades for individual projects such as *Research Project 1* and *Research Project 2* are registered at the date of grade submission by the examiner. Note that the students should be actively enrolled for this grade registration. ## Research Projects in non-academic environments When _Research Project 1_ takes place in a non-academic setting, such as a company, NGO or governmental institute, it may not always be possible to find a supervisor or internal grader that meets the set requirements. In that case, the role of the examiner is extended: besides involvement in the proposal, Midterm Evaluation and assessment, the examiner will then regularly check on project progress. In these scenarios, it is important that supervisor, student and examiner meet with the MBCS programme coordinator to set up appropriate planning.