Generic knowledge and skills (Portfolio) 12 hp MEPO003

In preparation for the half-time, you are expected to create an assessment version of your portfolio (based on selected entries from your learning portfolio), which you will share with your assessors.

There are two accepted formats; 1. a URL to a Mahara viewing page or 2. a pdf

All other instructions about how to present the portfolio at the half-time, and what you are recommended to include in each category, are found in the document "Guide to your portfolio work II; the half-time review".

At the half-time review, the portfolio is assessed by the two opponents and by the assistant head of department responsible for research studies. When assessing the portfolio, half-time opponents will use an assessment matrix, which is included in the certificate for the half-time review.

• Introduction/profile (very brief info on your background, time of admission, department and supervisors, type of PhD (part time/full time, subject, project)).
• Clear structure (the twelve categories, numbered, with capital letters); easy to overview.
• Layer 1: “panoramic” view (lists) 
  • Quick grasp of total experience. Empty categories?
  • Clear and informative headings for each entry, with time points.
• Layer 2: reflective and descriptive texts + attachments.
  • More detailed description of experiences.
  • Documents to support your participation in various activities.
  • Documents that support your progress towards various goals (eg tasks completed as part of a course, evaluations and other docs that describe your impact).
  • Your reflections on various activities. Choose the ones that you think demonstrate progression/development.
• Volume: there is no minimum or maximum. With the “layer” strategy, a lot of information can be included without loss of clarity.
• Activate comment fields to make it easier for the reviewer to give feedback.

Example of a half-time page (layer 1 and 2)

Common feedback in the different categories

• “Research process”: lacks description of challenges
• “Research process”: experience from writing project plans lacking. Attachment of project plan missing.
• ”Research methodology”: reflection on weaknesses and strengths of methods used missing.
• ”Publication(s)”: large focus on generation of data rather than description of your role in each step of the publication process (choice of journal, writing cover letter, submit, write rebuttal…).
• “Teacher training and experience”: lack of reflection on development as a teacher.
• “Conference and seminars”:
  • Individual seminars not documented (18 required in total)
  • total experience of presenting (orally or poster) difficult to overview due to individual presentations only being mentioned inside a long text.
  • Impact/development when presenting not reflected upon
• ” Cooperation with wider society”: no reflection on possible uses of results in society.