Whenever the interim results are finalised, students listed in b and c above will not receive any further notices if they trigger the criteria for a risk level. The student’s risk level will remain the same as that in the final round.
Faculties can determine whether it is appropriate to provide additional support to at-risk students (e.g. course progression meeting, making recommendations), or in some circumstances, apply interventions if it is deemed to be beneficial to the student’s ongoing enrolment. The interventions must follow those in the Student Academic Progress Policy (sections 3, 4 and 5).
The dean or delegate may use their powers outlined in the Academic Board Regulations provisions (30(1)(a)) to set enrolment conditions, as appropriate or refer to an Academic Progress Committee (APC) hearing.
When setting interventions for students with interim results, consideration must be given to the timing and fairness of the intervention. For example:
- enrolment conditions must not be set after census date where the student cannot be reasonably meet the conditions
- in making a decision, an APC is required to consider a students ‘complete academic record’ (section 2.5 of the Academic Progress Committee Procedure). This includes all units on the student’s academic record, including those with interim results, current enrolment in the teaching period and those with finalised results.
- before referring a student to an APC hearing and/or making a decision at such a hearing, consideration must be given as to whether an APC is able to make a fair and proper judgement because interim results remain unfinalised for that review period.
- when a student triggers a risk level 3 at the final round and where the following teaching period has already commenced, consideration whether an APC hearing is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. A faculty may wish to consider whether a course progression meeting and the imposition of enrolment conditions may be more appropriate for students in these circumstances.
Where an APC has decided to exclude a student with interim and/or upcoming assessments in the current teaching period, the hearing record sheet must record that the APC took these matters into consideration in coming to its decision.
Faculties should consult with OGC in circumstances where the validity of any intervention or referral to a hearing might be challenged.
Table 3 - Example scenarios for where interventions may be applied by the dean outside an academic progress review period
Student A |
the student had 100% interim grades after the final round for the first academic progress review period and they received an academic progress support notice with no risk level. After a few months the interim grades were finalised and the student has failed 50% of credit points for the review period. At that time the faculty can decide to: - take no action and defer any reassessment of the student’s academic progress until the end of the next review period; or
- take action and at the discretion of the dean (or delegate), apply conditions to the student’s enrolment, if it is determined that these can be reasonably achieved.
The faculty would not be able to refer the student to an Academic Progress Committee hearing as the student has not met the criteria for risk level 3. No risk level will be recorded for the student. |
Student B |
The student triggered risk level 2 in the first academic progress review period. In the next review period, the student had 3 interim results and 1 unit with a failed result. The student received a risk level one notice. After the end of the review period and after the final round of notices were sent, the student’s interim results were finalised as 100% fail grades. As this was after the review period cut off date, the student will not receive an updated risk level and the risk level will not be recorded in Callista. The faculty can review the student’s academic progress (using the discretion of the dean) or leave the review until the end of the next review period. If it is determined that interventions should be imposed, enrolment conditions can be applied (if it is determined that these can be reasonably achieved) or the student can be referred to an Academic Progress Committee hearing. As the hearing is likely taking place during a new review period, the panel must consider any upcoming assessments for units the student is enrolled in. |
Table 4 - scenarios for applying interventions to students with interim results
Student C |
The student has all interim results at the end of the first review period and receives an ‘undetermined risk level’ notice. The interim grades are finalised late in the second review period and after the final round of notices resulting in fail grades. In the meantime, the student receives all pass grades for units undertaken in the second review period. Where a faculty considers imposing interventions on the student based on the first period results, the faculty must consider the students complete enrolment and their unit results from the second review period first before determining a decision based on first review period results. |
Student D |
At the end of the final round, the student failed 50% of credit points and had 50% of units with interim results. The student receives a risk level 3 notice (for triggering an unsatisfactory academic progress criteria for a second consecutive review period). A faculty considers referring the student to an Academic Progress Committee hearing based on the finalised grades. The faculty should be aware that any intervention may be subject to challenge if the decision makes any assumptions about the student’s interim grades. The student's full academic record must be taken into consideration when making a decision. An appropriate intervention may be considered however following release of the outstanding results. |
