The Leeds Curriculum
Core Programme Threads & Research Based Learning Working Group
Guidelines and checklist for final year research-based work
The University’s definition of research-based learning includes preparing all students to undertake
an autonomous piece of research work as the culmination of their programme.
This piece of work may take many forms, but for simplicity is referred to in this document as the
Final Year Project (FYP).
The attached documents are updated versions of those agreed in July 2013, which reflect feedback
from schools and further consideration by the Working Group. They were endorsed by the Leeds
Curriculum Board on the 19th February 2014, for immediate implementation in all schools.

The Final Year Project Guidelines, describing the essential characteristics of the FYP
(attached as Appendix A)

Final Year Project Checklist for schools, highlighting key aspects of the arrangements for
operating a FYP
(attached as Appendix B)
Mitch Waterman
Chair, CPT & RBL Working Group
March 2014
1
Appendix A
Final Year Project Guidelines
1. Our definition of research-based learning includes preparing all students to undertake an
autonomous piece of research work as the culmination of their programme. This piece of work
may take many forms, eg a website, a community-based project, a dissertation or an artefact,
where consistent with the characteristics set out below, but for simplicity is referred to in this
document as the Final Year Project (FYP).
2. The FYP is seen by students as the pinnacle of their academic achievement, not only because of
the academic rigour that is imposed on it by the University, but also because of the control they
have to design, carry out and evaluate what they do. It is often seen to represent the point at
which students truly become members of a disciplinary group.
Final Year Project: main characteristics
3. The Final Year Project will have the following characteristics:
a) Be compulsory for all undergraduate students who begin their degree programme in
2014/151.
b) In single honours programmes the FYP should normally be at least 40 credits to recognise
the significant contribution it makes to the University of Leeds curriculum. In exceptional
circumstances, where the intellectual coherence of the programme would otherwise be
undermined, a minimum of 20 credits would be acceptable.
c) In joint honours programmes the FYP should be a minimum of 20 credits but with a view to
increasing this to 40 credits for students entering level 1 in 2015/16 (see additional criteria,
below in para 6, for joint honours programmes).
d) Any rating below 40 credits should be considered by the appropriate FTSEC which will need
to be assured that the project provides an appropriate experience for the student to
evidence their independent research skills.
e) Appropriate research methods training (including consideration of research ethics) must be
provided at level 1 and/or 2 as preparation for the range of FYP provided by the school
f) Allocation or selection of projects should follow a transparent and fair process; this may
involve students selecting from a pre-determined list, students originating ideas themselves
and exploring possibilities with potential supervisors, students identifying preferred projects
and being allocated supervision according to supervisory expertise. Schools should review
existing allocation processes to ensure that they remain transparent and fair to all students.
g) In allocating projects, schools should provide information and guidance to students to
ensure that they have the appropriate experience, aptitude and preparation to be capable
of succeeding. The preferred model of allocation would be that a list of project topics is
1
for students entering in 2013/14 who know there will be a FYP, and have been recruited on this basis, then this should
be in place for their FY. For those not recruited initially on this basis (potentially some entering L2 in Sept 2013), they
should have the option to choose (providing research methods training is in place).
2
published and students are invited to select and rank their top 3 as the basis for a fair
allocation process.
h) Result in an individual report responding to a question negotiated at the level of the
individual student (which may fit together into a piece of work which a group could do).
Essentially, this is to ensure that the student has some degree of intellectual input into the
identification of the aims, methods and likely outcomes of the research.
i) Be undertaken according to a research method reported by the student in their report. That
method will have been agreed through supervision sessions. The project work must be
recognisable as research for the discipline.
Final Year Project: Supervision
4. The supervision model for the Final Year Project should be determined by the school, based on
the following principles:
a) Supervision should be provided by the school responsible for the research topic (although
there may be occasions where co-supervision is the best way forward, where this can be
negotiated).
b) the supervisor should be sufficiently expert to ensure that the FYP output meets the module
learning outcomes (ideally schools should have a statement which sets out the expertise
required of its supervisors)
c) there should be an equitable distribution of supervision among available staff, taking into
account the need to maintain a high quality student experience, the nature and scale of
projects, the balance of individual and group projects, and the selection/allocation process
(some approaches might lead to heavier supervisory loads than others).
d) supervision should be consistent with the model of research in the discipline
e) there should be a transparent and fair process for the allocation of supervisors.
f) FYP supervision should be recognised in the workload model.
g) supervision should ensure an appropriate level of intellectual input by the student
h) the reading of drafts must reflect University guidelines on proof-reading
i) the Project Supervisor should meet the students they are supervising at least four times (to
discuss the projects aims and research methodology, to confirm the project plan, to monitor
progress at the half way point, to review draft sections of the final report). Most project
models tend to favour more supervision meetings, but it is recognised that the level of
supervision should take account of: the desired autonomy of the student; the level of
preparation provided in advance for the project work; the nature and scale of the project.
j) a record should be kept at school level of the supervisions for each student. This might take
the form of a supervision diary kept by the students and agreed by the supervisor.
Final Year Project: Assessment
5. The importance of this research-based work in terms of credit weighting and therefore
potential influence on the degree classification requires that:
3
a) the FYP must be assessed in a way which relates to it being a research based activity at UG
level. Typically this would include discussion of the rationale for the research, reporting of
the methods used, and their justification, the key findings, interpretation and discussion of
limitations and how future work might develop.
b) the assessment method must fit the model of the FYP
c) best practice would be to consider double-blind marking, with appropriate workload
allocation. Where this is not possible, and where the main form of assessment is a piece of
written work, then the assessment must be read by two markers, both of whom must be
members of academic staff and one of whom must be independent of the setting or
supervising of the project. There must be a clear process for moderation where there are
major discrepancies between markers.
d) the assessment should be calibrated to reflect the undergraduate status of the programme;
where schools have not historically operated a compulsory FYP, it is the responsibility of the
school to ensure that new and existing supervisors and assessors are appropriately
calibrated so as to ensure parity of the student experience.
6. The following criteria should be adopted for Joint Honours programmes:
a) Based on their research interest, the student should have the choice as to whether their
Final Year Project is taken in one or across both of the disciplines. The research topic chosen
will determine which school or schools should supervise the project.
b) The programme team must ensure that adequate research methods training is provided, to
the satisfaction of the relevant FTSEC, to enable the student to undertake a FYP in any
aspect of their programme.
c) To manage supervision capacity and minimise the possibility of oversubscription to popular
research topics, co-teaching schools should work together to agree and communicate the
process by which the allocation and selection process for FYPs is managed, e.g. quality of
research proposal, multiple research topics selected
4
Appendix B
Final Year Project Checklist for schools
In preparation for the introduction or continuation of any final year research-based work, schools
should use the following checklist to ensure all the relevant points have been covered.
Validation
1. Students must have an input into the research question development.
2. Assessment practices must be appropriate to the undergraduate level of their final year
research-based work.
3. Are there successful models in the School/related disciplines for final year research-based
work?
4. Are students suitably prepared for the final year project work, by, for example, exposure at
earlier levels to relevant and adequate research methods/skills modules?
5. Codes of Practice on Assessment will need to be updated to accommodate new practices with
respect to Final Year Project activity.
Module/programme management
6. You may need to specify the new module variants
7. You will need to consider whether the programme needs re-specifying and in the case of joint
honours, ensure there is discussion and agreement between co-teaching schools.
8. If you are considering multiple final year research-based models within a school (eg SMLC) it
will be important to ensure:
 all students do one of the RBL variants
 there is an equity of the student experience AND attainment between variants
9. Student selection of and allocation to projects needs to be considered, including the process for
assigning students to supervisors.
10. Staff who are supervising the research-based work should have a comprehensive
understanding of their associated responsibilities, e.g. through training, school meetings.
11. The role of the supervisor needs to be clear; and in the case of co-supervision, consistent, eg:
 the degree to which the supervisor would normally be expected to have specialist expertise
and experience
 the number and frequency of meetings based on number of credits (though based on a
minimum of four meetings as in para 4 of the Guidelines - to discuss the projects aims and
research methodology, to confirm the project plan, to monitor progress at the half way point,
to review the draft report). The critical consideration for this requirement is to ensure that the
level of supervision is consistent with the nature, scale and preparation for the project itself.
It is conceivable that schools might offer additional support, beyond the supervisor, but in
such circumstances it is the responsibility of the school to ensure that consistent advice and
guidance is provided.
 attendance at supervision meetings needs to be recorded.
 the degree to which draft submissions will be scrutinised and feedback provided in advance
of final submissions.
12. The role of supervisor needs to have appropriate recognition in the workload model.
5
Module progression
13. Collective agreement is needed within the school as to the marking criteria, recognising that the
project is at undergraduate level.
14. Ensure training is in place for assessors of the final year research-based work, where there is no
history of all staff supervising and assessing undergraduate level research projects.
15. Given the greater credit weighting for the Project, schools must ensure that robust second
marking and moderating procedures are in place, such as to be confident that marking is
accurate.
Marketing and communication
16. The school needs to ensure the final year research-based work is incorporated in its marketing
literature and highlighted as a ‘selling point’ for its programmes, eg school website and
brochures, Open Days, prospectus etc.
17. If programme changes are required, these must be communicated to post-applicants (applicants
holding offers) and current students.
Support for students
18. Students must be given appropriate research methods and research skills training appropriate
for each level of the programme. For JH programmes, in order to ensure that students have
choice between FYP in either discipline, the programme team will need to agree and provide
appropriate preparatory research skills training to support the decision to undertake the FYP in
either ‘half’ or across both ‘halves’ of the programme. Programme teams should consider the
integration of adequate research skills training in the curriculum should the option of stand-alone
research skills modules in each ‘half’ prove be problematic within the confines of the
programme.
19. Students must be given appropriate training with regard to ethics through the programme, and
be supported in any ethical review process which must be undertaken.
20. Students need to know from the outset, beginning with the prospectus, through induction and
subsequent progression, why they are doing a piece of final year research-based work, what the
benefits are and how this will be a major contribution to their experience on the programme (and
to their employability).
21. Schools should consider, as best practice, including a simple supervision log or diary as a
standard element of any FYP.
The Leeds Curriculum Board
March 2014
6