GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY
IDENTIFYING AND SUPPORTING STUDENTS WHO ARE AT-RISK OF ACADEMIC FAILURE
Context
Facilitating early student engagement and success is not a short-term enthusiasm or trend. It is likely
to be an enduring feature and responsibility in a mass higher education context. The educational
challenges arising from increased student diversity, wider access and varied entry pathways
requires us to consider a broader range of strategies beyond those we would normally associate
with ‘classroom teaching’ and the role and responsibilities of a ‘university educator’. It is also
increasingly recognised that risk of student attrition occurs across the student lifecycle, but is
particularly salient at points of transition, escalation of academic challenge or study-life conflict. A
brief summary of some of the academic transition tasks in the early student lifecycle is presented in
Appendix A.
Supporting student success and reducing academic risk necessitates that we develop new and
creative partnerships between academic, administrative and professional staff. Thus, supporting
student success in the present context involves shifts in our traditional strategies, skills and roles,
and is genuinely everyone’s business. It is particularly imperative that we do not design strategies
that are reliant on the ‘energy of enthusiasts’, these are almost always short-lived, result in staff
burnout and impede genuine systemic responses to students’ needs. Thus, while accepting our
responsibilities in this regard, we also need to design strategies that are both effective (what works?)
and sustainable (What can we feasibly continue to do?), and embed these as ongoing core business
in each of our undergraduate degree programs.
The present document focuses on the educational responsibility recognising and responding to
students who may be at risk of academic non-engagement or failure. However, it is recognised that
students face a wide range of personal, social and financial risks, which can impact on their studies
and their lives.
Complex Nature of Student Risk
Clarifying our ideas about student risk is a necessary starting point in designing strategies to
prevent or reduce academic failure. Academic risk is not an inherent characteristic or inevitable
outcome of group membership (e.g., first in family students, students from low SES backgrounds).
Group membership is at best a proxy indicator of the potential increased likelihood of some risk
factors (e.g., access to resources). Generally speaking, proximal factors (i.e., things that are closer in
time and place to university) are more controllable, empowering and predictive of success than
distal factors (i.e., group membership/demographic background). Thus, for example, the time
students spend studying (time on task) is a reliably stronger predictor of their academic success than
their demographic characteristics.
Therefore:

Our strategy for success should emphasise factors which are within our own and our
student’s control or are amenable to our influence.

We should be mindful in our approach of not creating self-fulfilling, and potentially
disempowering, expectations that ‘uni will be difficult’ for various student populations.
Similarly, risk is not necessarily an inherent quality of individual students (as in the term ‘at risk
student’), but rather it can be a function of the interaction between a student and the university.
Thus, a fuller understanding of ‘student risk’ requires us to consider how the design and conduct of
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
our learning environments and assessment practices may inadvertently increase commencing
students’ risk of academic failure or impede their engagement. In this sense, risk can be defined as a
mismatch of the demands of a course and the resources of commencing student resources (the
knowledge, attitudes and capabilities we inaccurately assume they possess). In this sense, risk is
reduced when courses are designed based on an explicit understanding of students’ capabilities. This
does not necessarily imply ‘dumbing down’ or ‘reduction of standards’, but rather, making conscious
design choices about where and how to start the learning and teaching process. Conscious course
design is an investment in prevention and is the ultimate risk management strategy. Importantly,
‘good design’ reduces the need for co-curricular support and can result in a significant saving of
time, effort and finances.
Therefore, we should scrutinise our courses and programs with a view to optimizing their ‘transition
enabling’ qualities for our commencing students.
We inadvertently place all of our students ‘at-risk’ when we do not explain and negotiate the ‘rules
of the game’ with them. When students have to guess or infer what increases or decreases their
chances of success they are likely to ‘get it wrong’ at least some of the time. The evidence suggests
that we often unjustifiably assume or take for granted that students know what is expected of them.
Commencing students often are not in a position to make realistic appraisals of the requirements of
the job of being a uni student. In this sense, risk can be defined as a student misjudgement or
misappraisal of course demands and their required investment (students’ misconceptions or
mistaken expectations about what is required). Risk is reduced (and chances of success increased) if
we engage upfront in the process of assertively and supportively shaping expectations and
contracting with students (e.g., What does it mean to study at Griffith? What are the things in your
control that can help or hinder your success?). Accurate understanding of the demands of one’s
context is an important protective factor. A sample ‘success statement’ is presented in Appendix B.
Therefore, we should locate our ‘at-risk strategy’ within a broader and explicit institutional narrative
of developing resourcefulness and success.
Figure 1: Sources of student risk and matching strategies
Students experience
personal or systems
blocks to helpseeking
(Scaffold self-help
and outreach to
students)
Students misjudge
or assume
expectations and
requirements
(Inform, educate and
contract with
students)
Staff misjudge or assume
student capabiliites
(Design transitive supportive
courses and programs)
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
There will be a predictable limits to the level to which we can intervene in the lives of students to
positively reduce student failure. Some factors may be out of our or students’ control, and
ultimately, ‘academic success’ is the responsibility of individual students. However, this should not
preclude an assertive approach to enhancing the early academic success of our commencing
students and our active outreach to those potentially experiencing difficulties. Students also do not
necessarily seek timely help for a range of personal and systemic reasons. Reactive coping processes,
under-developed problem-solving skills, frustratingly siloed systems and feelings of shame and
inadequacy impede students in seeking and finding help in a timely manner. Students benefit from
clear, predictable and active scaffolding of their efforts to succeed. On the one hand, it is our
responsibility to design and provide appropriate help systems and to facilitate students’ access to
these. On the other hand, it is our students’ responsibility to make effective use of the resources we
offer.
Therefore, we should design and disseminate a transparent user-friendly help-finding framework
which informs students as to ‘the best way to help yourself’ and staff as to ‘the best way to offer
help’.
Managing student risk involves a number of stakeholders with range of expectations. Our response
to students is a function of regulatory obligations and helpful intentions. In seeking to satisfy both of
these agendas simultaneously we need to be careful not to confuse ‘compliance with regulatory
obligations’ (e.g., sending automated emails), with actions that may be of more help to individual
students (e.g., contact by a tutor).
Therefore, we should be mindful of the related but distinct purposes of compliance and help and
design our strategies accordingly.
Framing our Strategy
It can be argued that the meta-goal of early university education is purposefully ‘scaffolding
students’ capacity for independence and self-regulation’. We cannot safely assume that students
arrive at university with the ability and willingness to be independent learners, developing this
capacity is part of the important role and responsibility of those of us working in first-year.
Facilitating student independence is a valid educational goal, which is, however, not incompatible
with providing and encouraging students to seek appropriate assistance. Students who recognize
when they need help or assistance to ‘go to the next level’, and who feel empowered to do so, are
more likely to succeed and feel good about themselves. Help-seeking is a key element of effective
self-regulation.
‘Help-rich’ learning environments do not necessarily ‘create dependence’, and indeed, high levels of
student help-seeking may equally indicate badly designed curriculum and assessment as much as
limitations in student ability or motivation. Well-designed help systems have ‘facilitating student
self-regulation’ as their meta-goal, and, while providing multiple sources and flexible modes of help,
emphasize as their foundation, purposefully facilitating self-help. It is also important to recognize
that ‘facilitating students to make use of self-help strategies’ is not the same as ‘not offering little if
any help’. The former is a process of strategic scaffolding; the latter is a process of premature
insistence on independence. Importantly, the more that we are able to integrate disciplinaryrelevant help-systems into the local design of programs and courses the less we will need to invest in
broad-brush university-wide mechanisms. Local help is always best!
Our strategy for supporting our at-risk students is therefore necessarily multi-layered. The following
framework presents an escalating series of interventions, starting with our approach to supporting
the success of (and reducing the risk for) all our students, and progressively identifying approaches
that may be appropriate as the perceived level of student risk increases.
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
Figure 2: Levels of prevention and intervention with student risk
Tertiary Prevention
What do we do for failing
students?
Strategies: Provide outreach to
commencing students who have
failed Semester 1 courses
Secondary Prevention
What do we do for identified at-risk
students?
Strategies : Use proximal or just-in-time risk
markers to identify under-engaged or underperforming students and provide focused outreach
Targeted/ Selective Primary Prevention
What do we do for specific groups of potentially at-risk
students?
Strategies: Use demographic or early-lifecycle risk markers to identify
particular groups of students and provide targeted support or
development opportunities
General/ Primary Prevention
What do we do for all students?
Strategies: Universal good design of first-year courses, helping commencing students
make realistic appraisals of expectations, testing and building readiness and academic
capital, strategic welcome, orientation and induction processes
Activities which will benefit all our students are proposed as foundational and universal. These
general or primary prevention strategies function to reduce the types of risk that result from a
mismatch or misappraisal of study demands and student resources. Some examples of primary
prevention strategies include:
Universal Design Critical among these universal capacity-building strategies is the design of first-year
semester courses (and related assessment practices) to effectively enable successful transition to
university study. The most useful form of help for students is a well-judged, well-paced and wellaligned curriculum. A course that is ‘crammed’ or ‘content heavy’, and that ‘moves forward’ each
week without checking if students are ‘keeping up’ is the antithesis of a student-centered selfadjusting learning system. Programs and courses that strengthen students’ sense of purpose and
build a sense of connection also reduce the risk of failure or non-persistence.
Scaffolding Self help Providing all students with the resources to learn in their own time, place and
pace is consistent with the educational meta-goal of scaffolding student self-regulation. In terms of
engaging potentially at-risk students, these are also the types of ‘face saving’ resources and activities
that any student can access without having to directly ‘ask someone for help’ or to ‘admit they are
not doing well’. This type of help is particularly effective when it is firstly, customised (type and
timing) to support students with their lifecycle-relevant tasks and concerns; and, secondly, the
process is based on active outreach to students usually in some form of online mode (e.g., timely
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
notices and invitations on L@G, SMS, emails, etc). The primary function is supporting students to
self-manage in the early stages of their academic life, and until they are able to develop the level of
required independence to function as a mature university student. Supporting students’ movement
toward independence and success can involve functions such as:





Providing timely information about forthcoming choices and decisions (e.g., key dates).
Providing ‘attention getting’ cues and prompts for timely completion of tasks (e.g., Have you
done....? By now you should have....if you haven’t we encourage you to.....)
Offering task/time relevant or appropriate help (e.g., If you would like to talk to someone
about........then....)
Legitimating and normalising concerns and giving permission to seek help (e.g., It’s common
around this time for students to be feeling......)
Building self-efficacy by offering assurance, encouragement and hope
Programmed Help Providing students with scheduled opportunities to access support and
information. These types of generic activities can range from orientation and induction,
preparatory workshops, common time type processes and academic advising. These may be
offered ‘centrally and generically’ and/or ‘locally and specifically’. Once again, just-in-time
activities are generally more widely used and therefore effective.
Peer Help Peers represent an underutilized capacity in our schools and programs. Senior
students are particularly credible and accessible translators of ‘the university experience’ to
commencing students. Peer processes can be formal (e.g., using peer tutors as per the PASS
model) or informal (e.g., establishing learning groups), incidental (e.g., providing opportunities
for discussion in class) or community-based (e.g., discussion boards). The focus can be academic
(e.g., PASS) and/or social (e.g., peer mentoring) integration.
Staff Developmental Help Encouraging, predictable and systematic arrangements for staffstudent contact are a key aspect of a universal success enabling and problem prevention
strategy. Staff help can take many locally appropriate forms: it can be responsive (e.g.,
consultation sessions), community-based (e.g., moderated discussion boards), systematic (e.g.,
feedback summaries to whole class), opportunistic (e.g., chatting to students) or just-in-time
(e.g., linked to major assessment tasks). The availability of staff is a key protective factor against
student withdrawal in the face of difficulty.
Where we are able to reliably identify (through predictive modelling or institutional research) subgroups of students who may have a potentially higher probability of encountering difficulties and/or
whose success we are philosophically committed to enabling, then early-lifecycle strategies or
programs that focus on specific needs may be helpful. However, these targeted prevention
strategies are not a substitute for, but a complement to, universal strategies. These populationspecific programs can be relatively informal (e.g., a welcome phone call to country students) or more
structured (e.g., dedicated workshops or ongoing contact/support). It may also be appropriate to
establish online ‘support campaigns’ which provide messages (information, invitation or outreach)
specifically tailored to the likely needs and experiences of groups of students identified from
university databases (e.g., first-in-family, low SES, students with low degree preference ranks, high
achieving students, indigenous students, international students). These ‘just-in-time and just-for-me’
campaigns seek to achieve similar functions as previously identified for universal prevention
(information provision, efficacy-building, normalizing). This form of ‘targeted support’ may be
offered as a university-wide process, but may have more potency when embedded in, or
complemented by, a program-level relational context. Local support is more likely to be valued by
students and protective against problems than general institutional support.
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
Commencing students face a number of predictable tasks and milestones in their first-semester at
university (See Appendix A). These lifecycle tasks can provide us with timely information on
students’ early academic engagement and performance, and can thus function as useful early-alert
or early-warning ‘risk markers’. Students who trigger these predetermined indicators (e.g., nonattendance, failure of early assessment) may have an increased level of risk of subsequent academic
failure. Thus, it may be strategic to offer these identified students secondary prevention strategies
to support their academic recovery (e.g., academic advising, time management, supplemental
instruction). Such intrusive outreach, involving direct unsolicited contact with individual students, is
based on the informed judgement that such action is justified, and in the student’s interest, given
the increased probability of their subsequent academic failure or attrition. In other words, nonengagement or performance on these ‘marker tasks’ is considered to be more predictive of
subsequent problems than more general indicators such as group membership. This category of
intervention can be conceived as a ‘safety net’ for students who may be experiencing difficulties that
require a timely response to enable academic recovery. The level of outreach (e.g., the level of
persistence in contacting students) and the degree of intrusiveness (e.g., voluntary participation or
compulsory requirement) is a matter for judgement based on balancing considerations of ‘duty of
care’ and ‘student independence’. However, the extent to which students may positively respond to
these intrusive measures may depend on the extent to which we have previously communicated to
them that this is a normal and expected part of ‘supporting student success at Griffith’. Certainly,
experience to date would suggest that uptake for additional support from identified at-risk students
is quite modest (i.e., less than 20% on average). Influencing students to engage with ‘offered help’ is
major challenge affecting the effectiveness of any at-risk strategy.
Of course, for a complex range of reasons, students may still encounter academic or life difficulties,
and subsequently fail one or more courses in their first semester of university study. The tertiary
prevention tasks at this later stage are to help students understand the reasons for their failure and
to develop personally appropriate actions which can range from minor adjustments (e.g., time
management, study skills), repositioning of priorities (e.g., shift to part-time enrolment) to more
fundamental revisions (e..g, change of degree). Student may make these changes on their own, but
they are more likely to make informed choices and return to Griffith if we support them in the
process. This stage involves a much smaller group of students with usually quite challenging
circumstances (which is a major reason to more strongly invest in earlier forms of prevention). There
is however significant potential at this point in the lifecycle to help perhaps our most at-risk group
for whom academic failure may represent a crisis of confidence and require them to make decisions
without full awareness of their options or the available resources.
Griffith At-Risk Markers
There are a number of points and tasks across the early student lifecycle that offer the potential for
both effective and sustainable monitoring and intervention of student engagement and
performance. Based on the premise that ‘early engagement is a good predictor of later success’ and
the corollary ‘early non-engagement is a good predictor of risk of failure’, it is proposed that the
university ‘front-load’ it’s monitoring and outreach to emphasise the first semester of
commencement at Griffith.
It is recommended, based on the criteria of effectiveness, feasibility and sustainability, that we focus
on risk markers that represent key milestones across first-semester and are amenable to relatively
easy monitoring and intervention.
The following five ‘risk and success markers’ are proposed:
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011





Readiness: as represented through attendance at orientation or completion of online
orientation
Early engagement: as represented through class attendance or online participation
Early performance: as represented through submission of first or early assessment
Early outcomes: as represented through passing of first or early assessment
Cumulative outcomes: as represented through passing of first-semester first year courses
The rationale for the selection of these risk markers and suggested minimum stands for responding
are outlined in Appendix A and Appendix B respectively.
Working Principles
A set of working principles are recommended to guide our approach to monitoring and supporting
at-risk students.
University-wide consistency Both staff and students are best served by consistency and
predictability. There is a need for a consistent university-wide minimum standard for both the
identified markers of risk (What will we monitor?) and the minimum level of response with degree
programs (How will we help?). Adopting a university-wide benchmark does not proscribe Schools
implementing additional good practices above and beyond the agreed minimum standards.
Thus, we should adopt the same set of risk markers across the university.
Linkage to universal strategy The reduction of risk of academic failure is simply the other side of the
coin of ‘enabling academic success.’ All of our commencing students, irrespective of group
membership or academic pathway, will benefit from being systematically informed and educated
about the factors within their control that will help or hinder their success at university.
Being clear and frank with our commencing students about ‘what it takes to succeed’ and ‘what we
will do to help you’ as a key aspect of orientation positions them as active and responsible partners
in the learning process. Thus, if our ‘at risk strategy’ is a transparent to students and a normalised
aspect our overall explicit contract with them about ‘studying at Griffith’, then they may be less
likely to be ‘surprised’ or ‘offended’ when someone contacts them about ‘how they are going’ after
they trigger a risk marker.
Thus, we should actively and transparently communicate our at-risk strategy to all our students.
Local relationship focused responses Students are not so much ‘at-risk of not succeeding at uni’, but
rather of ‘not succeeding in their degree’. Students are likely to respond best to help provided by
staff they know within the context of their particular degree program. Thus our intervention
strategies should preference the ‘local and relational’. Technology-based mechanisms may be
effectively employed to identify students who have triggered risk markers, and to initially
communicate with or invite contact from them. However, in almost all circumstances, ‘effective
responding’ will involve a focused and supportive conversation between staff member and student.
Thus, each degree program should develop and implement locally relevant approaches to supporting
their at-risk students which are consistent with university minimum standards.
Linkage with current technology In order to enable time and effort efficient identification and
invitation, priority should be given to designing and implement processes that interface with the
current university systems (e.g., Ask Us CRM or Learning@Griffith).
Thus, enhancement of our current tracking and communication systems should be a priority.
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
Feasibility and sustainability One of the greatest threats to working effectively and sustainably with
our at-risk students is a lack of coordination. Schools/Programs will need to clarify and coordinate
the roles and contributions of key staff in this process (e.g., First Year Advisor, Program Convenor,
First Year Course Convenors, Tutors, SAO/PSO).
Thus, Program Convenors should convene and manage a planning process to coordinate the at-risk
strategy in each degree program.
Coordination of local and central contributions There is a need for ongoing coordination between
school/program-based responses and central university strategies. Low-level coordination simply
involves boundary management strategies such as avoiding redundancy or not ‘stepping on each
other’s toes’. This aids efficiency. High-level coordination involves boundary spanning strategies such
as the active exploration of complementarity and synergy. This builds effectiveness.
Thus, Central Services Managers and Deans (Learning and Teaching) should identify points for
effective ongoing coordination of support.
Monitoring of effectiveness The efficiency and effectiveness of strategies should be systematically
monitored and evaluated both centrally and within programs. What works in one context may not
be so effective in another. Key considerations are the capacity of selected monitoring and outreach
strategies to engage students in the process of academic recovery (e.g., timeliness of indicators,
proportion of students positively responding to invitations). We should not approach this as a ‘try
and hope’ procedure, but rather, a ‘trial and evaluate’ strategy. We need to identify the types of
standard indicators and data that we will gather for all programs to inform our evaluation and
potential redesign.
Thus, GIHE should collaborate with Deans (Learning and Teaching) to design and implement an
evaluation of the 2012 at-risk process.
Proposed Goals and Actions
By 2013 Griffith will have implemented an effective and sustainable university-wide strategy for
identifying and supporting students who are considered to be at risk of academic failure or attrition.
This goal suggests a number of actions:
1. Developing and/or testing technology to improve our university-wide capacity to efficiently track
and outreach to our students.
2. Developing the capability of academic and sessional teaching staff to support students who may
be experiencing personal or academic difficulties.
3. Strengthening the University’s central capacity to coordinate and support academic and sessional
staff working with students who are experiencing personal or academic difficulties.
4. Strengthening partnerships and working models between academic and professional staff to
ensure availability of resources and expertise to support students who are experiencing personal or
academic difficulties.
5. Developing online tools that enable students to make early and realistic self-appraisals of their
readiness for university study and to readily link to relevant support or resources.
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
5. Developing the capacity of academic staff to better understand and relate to their commencing
student cohorts by providing ‘cohort profiles based on available student demographic, performance
and self-assessment information.
6. Developing the Griffith online orientation system to more effectively prepare a wider range of
undergraduate and postgraduate students for success at University.
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
Appendix A: Tasks and transitions in the early student lifecycle
Approximate
Timing
January
Weeks -7 to -5
February
Weeks -2 to -1
Student
Lifecycle
Phase
Clarifying &
Choosing
Students receive
their QTAC offers
and decide ‘what
to do’, ‘where to
do it’ and ‘how
to do it’.
Committing &
Preparing
Students finalise
their enrolment
in their degree
program and
start thinking preorientation about
‘getting ready for
uni’
February
Orientation
Week
Joining &
Engaging
Students start to
clarify ‘what is
expected’ , ‘how
much they will
invest’ and ‘what
uni will mean’
in their lives.
March
Weeks 1 to 4
April-May
Weeks 5 to 12
Finding your
feet
Students
consider ‘if uni
is for me’, ‘do I
belong here’
and ‘can I do
this’ and then
persist, change,
freeze or leave.
Getting into it
Students launch
into the ‘main
game’ of
semester and
face the hurdles
of regular
attendance and
early- assessment
tasks
June
Weeks 13 to
exams
Keeping it
Together
Students
navigate the
cumulative
pressure of
‘end-of –
semester’.
WHAT DOES YOUR SCHOOL, PROGRAM OR SECTION DO AT EACH STAGE?
WHAT SERVICES, RESOURCES, INTERVENTIONS, ACTIVITIES OR SYSTEMS CAN BE ACCESSED BY COMMENCING STUDENTS?
FOR ALL
STUDENTS?
FOR IDENTIFIED
GROUPS OF
STUDENTS?
FOR STUDENTS
WHO ARE/MAY
BE ‘AT RISK?
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
July
Semester 2
Semester
Break
Taking Stock
Getting back
Students
to it
receive their
Most
Semester 1
students
results and ‘re- return to uni,
orient to uni’
some
or consider
students
‘exiting’
start uni for
the first time
and some do
not return.
Appendix B: Sample expectations statement for commencing students
What will it take for you to be successful at university?
Welcome to Griffith. We very much want you to succeed in your studies. Our research has identified the key
strategies used by successful university students and your first important task as a commencing student at
Griffith is to develop these for yourself. Here are our top-ten success strategies, some of these may seem
obvious, but that doesn’t make them any less critical to your success. We want you to start preparing now for
your success at Griffith.
I am more likely to be successful at university if:
I balance my commitments Students who realistically balance their study, work and personal demands are
more able to find the time that their study requires and deserves. We want you to manage your time to give
yourself the best chance possible of succeeding.
I turn up to my classes Students who regularly attend lectures and tutorials are more able to keep up with
their work and have greater opportunities for asking questions and meeting new people. We want to see you
at class.
I make time for study Students who spend study time each week on each of their courses are more able to
positively manage their assessment tasks and are much less likely to be overwhelmed towards the end of
semester. We want you to start early and work consistently.
I make connections Students who make an effort to connect with their fellow students and staff and develop
their social networks are more likely to both enjoy their university experience and to find support and help
when they need it. We want you to feel welcome and that you belong.
I have a reason to be here Students who take the time to clarify or remind themselves why they are at uni are
more likely to find their study meaningful and to persist when they face difficulties. We want you to talk to us
about what you want from uni so that you can study with a sense of purpose.
I engage with the uni online Students who learn how to navigate their way around the uni website, engage
with their online course activities and regularly read their emails are more likely to find information and help
when they need it. We want you to find out how things work so you can know what’s going on.
I set up my resources Students who set up their home study environments to support their out of class
learning can better manage potential distractions and get more done in less time. We want you to have a
successful study environment at home.
I ask for help Students who ask for help when they don’t know something or are not sure that they can
manage are more likely to handle their challenges and be successful in all aspects of their university study. We
want you to use our support services and ask us for help when you need it.
I persist with challenges Students who keep persisting with their studies even though they have worries and
concerns about all sorts of things are usually able to do well and achieve their goals. We want you to believe in
yourself as much as we do.
I have a plan Students who set a few key goals and organise themselves to achieve them are more likely to
feel that they are taking charge of their university experience. We want you to develop a plan for your success
at Griffith.
Your success starts with you.
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
Appendix C: Proposed risk markers for commencing students and supporting rationale
Risk Marker
1. Early readiness markers
Non-attendance at on-campus
degree program orientation
and/or
Rationale
Both attendance at, and satisfaction with, orientation predict early student
satisfaction with their degree program.
Students’ expectations and (mis)conceptions of university study are related
to their invested ‘time on task’.
Non-use of online orientation
Provides an assertive signal to students regarding the importance we
attach to the depth of their early engagement
2. Early engagement markers
Non-attendance at class
(especially tutorials/labs in
weeks 1 to 4)(prior to census
date) in a first-semester first
year course,
Early attendance at class or engagement with online learning modes (time
on task) predicts subsequent outcomes (learning and persistence).
and/or
Non-use of online environment
(e.g., logging on to L@G) in a
first-semester first year course
3. Early performance marker
Non-submission of first/early
assessment in a first-semester
first year course
4. Early outcome marker
Fail or poor result on first/early
assessment in a first-semester
first year course
Students’ capacity to navigate our online learning environment is
foundational to their ability to find the information and help they need.
Attendance at class (especially small classes such as tutorials), facilitate
relationships between students, which is both worthwhile in itself, and a
protective factor for loneliness and attrition.
Identifying and advising students who have enrolled but who do not intend
to continue (our paper or virtual students) before census date, enables
them to avoid an unnecessary HECS debt and the University to proactively
manage attrition KPIs.
Commencing students may ‘fall at the first hurdle’ for a wide range of
reasons (some out of their control), and are routinely not aware of the
capacity of the system to respond flexibly to genuine concerns (e.g.,
extensions, special considerations, study support).
Student commonly do not seek timely help. This provides an early chance
to problem solve and recover.
Commencing students imbue their performance on early assessment with
great personal significance (e.g., am I smart enough to be at uni?), and this
can negatively impact on their self-efficacy and persistence.
Performance on early assessment can be predictive of later outcomes. So a
timely response is strategic and can aid academic recovery.
Offers probably the first practical test of, and opportunity to discuss,
students’ progress (helps and hindrances) towards the goal of selfregulating/self-managing in an academic environment.
5. Cumulative outcome marker
Failure on a first semester firstyear course
High payoff point for intervention as this is the first risk marker which
involves actual material consequences for students. Therefore we are more
likely to have their attention.
Failure on one or more courses (particularly core course) can require
students to reconsider their progression plans in the current degree, or reevaluate their sense of purpose or ‘fit’ overall with the degree or university
more generally. Timely opportunity to review ‘how they went’ and to
consider ‘what they might do differently’ in second semester.
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
Appendix D: Proposed risk markers and potential minimum monitoring and response strategies
Risk Marker
1. Early readiness markers
Non-attendance at on-campus
degree program orientation
How will we monitor?
Record names of students
who attend degree program
orientation
How will we respond?
Email from program convenor
Non-use of online orientation
Record student login to
online orientation resource
SMS message encouraging use of online
orientation resource
2. Early engagement markers
Non-attendance at class
(especially tutorials/labs in
weeks 1 to 4)
(prior to census date) in a firstsemester first year course,
Attendance logs kept for
small class course
components (e.g., tutorials)
for weeks 1 to 4.
Outreach will need to be contextually
appropriate, however a minimum response
would be:
and/or
Encouraging email from course convenor
reminding students of the importance of
attendance, inquiring if ‘everything is okay’,
and offering to discuss any problems
Some degree programs require attendance or routinely
keep an attendance log.
Tutors need to be recruited as partners in this process in
order to appreciate the importance of keeping logs.
Administrative support required to audit the logs and
collate a list of ‘identified students’.
There is a small window (weeks 2 and 3) to reliably
assess non-attendance/engagement prior to HECS
census date.
and/or
Non-use of online environment
(e.g., logging on to L@G course
site and completing a set level of
tasks) by week 3 in a firstsemester/first year course
What are the issues we need to manage?
We currently do not have a coherent online orientation
system or capacity to monitor student
participation/completion of orientation tasks. This would
be an aspirational marker for 2013 or mid-year intake
2012.
Tracking report of non or low
engaged students based on
degree of completion of a
set menu of online tasks
Email from course convenor (as above)
differentiating:
 non-engaged (not completed any
online tasks)
 low-engaged students (only
completed some online tasks)
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
Training or support required to enable course convenors
to set up their L@G sites to track student engagement.
3. Early performance marker
Non-submission of first/early
assessment in a first-semester
first year course
Grade Book report at
submission date.
Outreach will need to be contextually
appropriate, however a minimum response
would be:
Course convenor or tutor email student
noting non-submission and encouraging
contact to problem solve.
In some cases a phone call to a student
from a tutor may be considered more
useful.
Responses to non-submission need to be timely, to
enable students to recover. Delay of responding to nonsubmissions at the same time as when grades are
returned defeats the purpose of this exercise.
4. Early outcome marker
Fail or poor result on first/early
assessment in a first-semester
first year course
Grade Book report
Outreach will need to be contextually
appropriate, however a minimum response
would be:
To optimize the effectiveness of this academic recovery
intervention three fundamental issues will need to be
considered:
Timing of the first assessment item. First assessment
tasks need to be scheduled sufficiently early in semester
(preferably by week 4) and marked sufficiently quickly
(1-2 week turnaround) to enable meaningful and timely
intervention with failures.
Course convenor or tutor email or phone
call inviting students who have failed/near
failed the target assessment item to make a
time to ‘review and learn’ from the
experience.
In addition convenors could make available
resources to all students to scaffold
academic self-regulation such as:
Self-review workbook on L@G to help
students consider the factors affecting their
performance on early/first assessment.
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
Weighting of the first assessment task First assessment
tasks need to be weighted appropriately (e.g., relatively
‘low stakes’ of not more than 25%) to enable academic
recovery following failure.
Nature of the first assessment task First assessment tasks
should ideally be designed to provide a ‘formative
learning’ or ‘early success experience’ for commencing
students. Overly challenging or ambiguous tasks will
unnecessarily increase failure rates.
5. Cumulative outcome marker
Failure on a first semester firstyear course
School/program Assessment
Board reports
Outreach will need to be contextually
appropriate, however a minimum response
would be:
Students will have failed or underperformed for a wide
range of reasons. A wholistic and coordinated approach
to student support will be required.
Encouraging email from Program
Convenor/Director, just after Semester 1
results announced differentiating:
What capacity do we have to provide academic advising
and learning support for students who have failed 2 or
more courses in Semester 1?

Students who have failed one
course (developmental advising
tone)

Students who have failed two or
more courses ( intrusive advising
tone)
Coordinated with later formal response
from Student Administration:
SMS (early July) to continuing
students who had not enrolled for 2 2011
Calls (late July) to continuing and
commencing students who had not
enrolled for 2 2011
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011
Professors Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson for the Griffith First Year Working Party – October 2011