Student Management User Group
Study Plan Management – Current Issues and Future Considerations
Institution: UTS
Curtin Uni
Contact:
Macquarie University
Insearch
Southern Cross University
Bond University
James Cook University
Pam Rooney
Louise Batchelor
(comments from Katrina Junovich & Jean Nicoll)
Georgina Allen
Michelle O'Neill
Mary McDermott
Tanya Cook
Graeme Evans
AIM OF THE SESSION:


To identify the issues that sites experience with regards to Study Plan Management functionality during regular maintenance, maintenance due to
course change, application of bulk processing functionality or on the web
Agree on the scope of essential Study Plan functionality in order to address the key issues
Does existing Study Plan functionality provide the following:
Attribute
Site
Yes/No
Clarity
UTS
Yes
Curtin
Yes
MU
No
SCU
No
Collated by Pam Rooney, University of Technology Sydney
Student Management User Conference
13-14 September 2006
Comment
There is an educational overhead to acquaint students and staff with study plan concepts and terminology. The
study plan screen is visually not user-friendly. The tree structure in eStudent is clear enough – it is the concept of
expansion and selection which causes confusion.
High overhead for training staff – difficult to ensure all staff have clearly understood some concepts.
Difficult to re-train practices if we have to introduce workarounds (either caused by bugs or enhancements).
Some messaging unclear and confusing – difficult to ascertain what the problem is or message asks same thing in
different ways therefore users tend to ignore messages or expect that it is the same message
Some concepts relating to expansion and selection of correct templates can be confusing.
High number of Tabs and inability to resize windows results in staff not checking information resulting in errors not
being adequately identified.
(JN) There is still confusion amongst staff as to difference between the study plan – ie the components required to
complete the course and be granted the award, and the student study package record which shows all unit
enrolments whether on or off the plan.
Student’s study plan is clear only through use of the client Study Package Structure screen (S1SSP190) or the tree
structure provided in the web (eStudent and eAcademic).
The eStudent ‘choice’ from Option groups is awkward. Students find this difficult to use.
We pre-expand all plans for the students, as we do not find it an easy process for the students.
Study Plan (SP) Structure window is visually informative with regard to structure, whereas the Study Plan (SP) does
not visually indicate structure. We need a combined window. However in some situations we would like to be able to
sort by year and study period descending.
Page: 1
Student Management User Group
Study Plan Management – Current Issues and Future Considerations
Attribute
Consistency
Site
Yes/No
BOND
N
JCU
Yes - eStu
No - Client
UTS
Curtin
Flexibility
MU
SCU
BOND
JCU
UTS
Curtin
MU
No
No
Yes
Yes
Y
No
No
No
No
Collated by Pam Rooney, University of Technology Sydney
Student Management User Conference
13-14 September 2006
Comment
We often have users puzzled about how or why a subject has appeared or disappeared from the study plan. While
there is a logical explanation, it is normally not understood by users. This is obviously a gap in our training but many
of the processes are quite complex and difficult for non-core users to understand.
Items in client appear in inconsistent order and change order
There is an inconsistency in the way that study plans function on the client server and on the web. Eg the
circumstances which require a new approval level to be entered.
There are also a variety of approaches to the identification of ‘prior learning’ depending upon the status of the study
package in question. Ie passed, exempt, equivalents, versions etc.
Some user messages inconsistent especially in relation to selection of availabilities on the plan. (JN) For example
one version is ‘there is more than one availability, the next is xxx do you wish to enrol in it, answer = yes, another is
‘the next availability is xxx, do you want to select another, answer = no.
Difficult for staff (especially new) to grasp concept and check what availability system student has enrolled in with
auto enrol, force select avail or select avail options and inconsistent.
Able to save changes to plan without resetting new approval – appears to be if user selects to print ETA and staff
are easily able to make errors if enrolment transactions are made via Student Study Package rather than via the
study plan as they cannot see the whole picture of what the student is required to complete (may need additional
security coding).
(JN) Another issue is the display of completion criteria on the Study Plan completion criteria tab. Incomplete criteria
are displayed, but once completed the record disappears from this tab and users have to go to the SSP Conditions
windows to view the details.
Not aware of any inconsistencies.
We don’t have major issues with consistency
Variation between client & web versions
The study plan structure does not lend itself easily to change.
Some functions are inflexible – particularly in relation to processing changes of major using the plan and the
structure windows. Also difficulty and inflexibility with times that these functions can be performed (too time
consuming to be completed at point of re-enrolment, significant date impacts and Board of Examiners constraints).
This is a critical issue for online web enrolments.
Study package structure window too dependent on what is on the study plan –more appropriate and flexible if it
allowed users to move components that are marked as off the plan.
Require flexibility to be able to retain enrolment in units if pre-requisite is not going to be met as a result of
withdrawal, ability to be able to make changes to citizenship without having to withdraw and re-enrol to trigger
correct fees and ability to be able to mark off SSP conditions/system checks for SSP authorisations at point of
enrolment on Study Plan.
Unable to utilise bulk processing unless a high level of flexibility is delivered (ie main concern is at the level of
structure study packages and where there is a requirement to select a specific structure study package template).
eStudent requires manual intervention. Particular instances are:
Students needing to re-attempt a passed unit (for pre-requisite reasons).
Replacing versions of a unit on the student’s plan when the earlier version is phased out.
Page: 2
Student Management User Group
Study Plan Management – Current Issues and Future Considerations
Attribute
Integrity
Minimal manual
intervention
Site
Yes/No
INSEARCH
Yes
SCU
No
BOND
JCU
Y
No
UTS
No
Curtin
No – need a
big stick!
MU
Yes
SCU
Yes (mostly)
BOND
JCU
N
No
UTS
No
Curtin
No
MU
No
INSEARCH
No
Collated by Pam Rooney, University of Technology Sydney
Student Management User Conference
13-14 September 2006
Comment
The changing of a substructure within a substructure once selected by a student. They cannot ‘switch’
substructures. (This is a particular problem with elective ‘modules’ within certain courses.)
Inability to use Bulk SSP Processing/Globally Replace to replace a unit with an alternate, a unit with a
substructure or vice versa. Details are attached. It is the subject of an AR, MU2697)
Study plans are too flexible, i.e. Staff can add units to a study plan that don't belong to the parent program.
Users cannot add/delete components in SP Structure; can’t re-arrange structure in SP. On the web, students can’t
change their major. (also see comments under Minimal manual intervention)
Study plans are very flexible on an individual student basis, but less for groups of students (i.e. bulk)
Study Plan integrity reports are essential to identify the more obvious errors.
There is widespread distrust of the ongoing integrity of study plans and therefore the benefits of using early
‘completion approved’ cannot be realised.
Maintaining integrity is very user dependent therefore the integrity of the plan depends on whether or not the user
has maintained the plan correctly according to structure and authorised changes and requires that the user has not
made any errors.
Constantly have to review plans to maintain integrity and with large numbers of records this is a high overhead and
a critical issue for online web enrolments.
(JN) Although I don’t know what the system can do about this, because we want flexibility.
Structure plan errors are introduced by user error. We then use our own ‘integrity’ reports to identify problems and
manage the Student’s plans.
Maintenance of SP is complex for most of our courses, so staff training is critical. However if managed correctly SP
can be relied on for the majority of students and we like the CA functionality. There are a few areas, such as
common units across majors, credit for earlier versions of components, where there can be problems and we are in
the process of developing integrity reports to identify instances of such problems.
We don’t currently have any organised approach to monitoring integrity of study plans
Integrity problems identified by other sites in a number of areas
Recent changes to eStudent have meant that more manual intervention is required. This has placed a strain on
faculty resources in what was traditionally a down-time for them.
Some assumptions made regarding student behaviour is unrealistic and has resulted in unnecessary retrictions eg
reselection of a major or submajor via the web. The reality is that by giving students web access you also give them
the ability to change their minds several times.
High manual intervention when changing majors (have to add units to plan to be able to amend study package
structure) or when course structures are changed.
High manual intervention during data checks to pick up staff errors, errors caused by bugs and where approval level
is altered (ie Central responsible for change but Devolved approval for completion).
Requirement of manual intervention limits effectiveness and ability to process in bulk and impedes ability to facilitate
online web enrolment effectively.
Refer to Flexibility.
Manual intervention is required during conversions, as subjects from the old program are transferred to the new
program and must be individually deleted.
Page: 3
Student Management User Group
Study Plan Management – Current Issues and Future Considerations
Attribute
Robustness
Site
Yes/No
SCU
No
BOND
Y&N
JCU
No
UTS
No
Curtin
MU
No
Improving
Comment
Various scenarios require manual intervention: student change of major or other intermediate component; student
selection of Off Plan components; student wanting to swap unit type from eg off plan core to on plan option/elective,
etc. For deletion of majors by staff users, we would prefer units other than Planned, to be disassociated from the
major and to remain on Plan for staff to re-arrange as required, rather than go Off Plan immediately
Depending on the simplicity of the structure – some study plans require very minimal intervention, but the majority
have complications that require significant intervention
Transaction originally built for operation by staff in client and has not migrated well to online enrolment by students
without requiring significant clean up.
Identification and correction of errors on the study plan is an increasing overhead.
Some functions associated with the study plan and enrolment are quite slow or time consuming for staff
Web interface for students enrolling online relatively cumbersome and slow resulting in frustration
Grid Display could be improved – need to be able to view liability category. Can EP info be displayed elsewhere?
(JN) The inability to expand windows with tabs has been a long time issue, particularly with this key window, which
contains so much information..
Search criteria associated with this window needs to be rigorous and possibly review what is currently available and
remove unused criteria and add what is required – as we have a large number of records we use this criteria to
facilitate data checking and we need to be able to make changes quickly and efficiently online rather than having to
check reports and then make changes. Robustness compromised by inability to perform some tasks due to lack of
functionality (ie SSP Authorisations can be recorded but the system does refer to them during processing), lack of
appropriate search criteria and flexibility as well as limitations caused by the above attributes.
Difficulty getting enhancements to satisfy our needs in making the system more robust for our main business
processes is also limiting. (JN) We have requested increased search functionality but only been given limited
improvement.
Improved with recent fixes such as control over the units accepted against an OPTION line however such items as
the web losing the ‘alternate’ indicator against a student’s unit continue to create work.
To be fully robust the issues raised under Flexibility need to be addressed.
BOND
JCU
No - for
performance,
otherwise Yes
N
No
UTS
No
SCU
Useability (for staff &
students)
Curtin
No
Collated by Pam Rooney, University of Technology Sydney
Student Management User Conference
13-14 September 2006
Our concerns relate to slow performance (we don’t have significant concerns re errors)
Use of study plans has changed the level of knowledge that staff need to have in order to enrol students in subjects.
Use of casual data entry staff to process enrolments or student requests is not viable if you have fully managed
study plans due to the lack of robustness.
Useability for staff highly dependent on their knowledge and skills as well as the robustness of the system. Staff will
have different requirements depending on their roles – administrative staff will require more complexity in terms of
enrolment processes and data checking, however academic staff will have different requirements. Currently
student use for enrolling online is not viable due to a high requirement for manual intervention, lack of data integrity
and lack of robustness.
Page: 4
Student Management User Group
Study Plan Management – Current Issues and Future Considerations
Attribute
Site
Yes/No
MU
No
INSEARCH
No
SCU
No
BOND
N
JCU
No
Comment
Use of study plans has changed the level of knowledge that staff need to have in order to enrol students in subjects.
Use of casual data entry staff to process enrolments requires significant training and management but it is a cost of
the added value of guiding students to self enrol on the web. It is also essential to avoid litigation.
Refer to Clarity and Flexibility above.
Screens are confusing for staff (particularly temps).
Confusing. Staff need thorough training – for students, this is an issue as the functionality is not sufficiently intuitive.
It would be good if students could enrol off a page that showed them the structure. For staff, the Approval Level
should be on the front tab to save time and key strokes – an RSI issue when large volumes are processed, eg doing
SP reviews
We find that there are so many variables required to ensure that a study plan is correct that maintaining staff that
are trained and willing to use the study plan efficiently is difficult.
Drawn out web process is extremely frustrating for students and client window is very user unfriendly and most
unintuitive for staff
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
1. Curriculum and Study Plan strategies
Please indicate below the number which best describes current practice.
Site
Course design strategy
1. Developed by Academics with no reference
to system constraints
2. Developed by academics with reference to
principles for effective study plan
management
3. Strong corporate approach to consistency of
course design to support effective study
plan management
Collated by Pam Rooney, University of Technology Sydney
Student Management User Conference
13-14 September 2006
UTS
Enter #
1
Curtin
Mostly 2
MU
2 to 3
Comment/Issues
Moving toward 2 as a result of experience in the last 2 years.
Principles of course design recommendations currently under
development.
Area dependent but for CBS courses committee members normally have
the expertise to identify constraints and make reference to principles of
effective study plan management if they have not already been considered
by Academic staff.
(JN) A lot of areas have been at 1, but we are moving towards 3.
Course design is managed centrally. Divisions submit their requirements to
the Academic Program Committee to enforce a strong corporate approach
to consistency of course design. Effective study plan management is a
consideration but not a driver for course design.
Page: 5
Student Management User Group
Study Plan Management – Current Issues and Future Considerations
Study Plan Strategy
1.
2.
3.
Fully managed study plan ie ‘set and forget’
Unstructured but managed incrementally
Other
INSEAR
1
SCU
1
moving
to 2,
working
on 3
BOND
1
JCU
2/3
UTS
1
Curtin
1
MU
3
INSEAR
SCU
Collated by Pam Rooney, University of Technology Sydney
Student Management User Conference
13-14 September 2006
All courses new or amended must be approved by curriculum manager
Study Plans are fully managed for all students in credit based courses.
SPM responsibilities fully devolved to the faculties on the basis that they
are have the expert knowledge regarding course structures and
requirements. Central staff have little or no study plan management
knowledge.
Managed Divisionally with overall SPM responsibilities devolved to
Divisional level staff with expert knowledge in course structures and
requirements. Central staff may have limited involvement in Study Plan
Management. With existing functionality the process is normally “set” but
we have not managed to achieve the “forget” as yet.
- We have fully managed study plans.
- We have structures that allow full student choice, for example
select 68 credit points of undergraduate units
- We have combinations of the above.
3
1
Staff from Student Services are now establishing closer liaison with
Schools and will begin monitoring their course development processes
Study plans are managed by staff in Student Services.
We are not marking Sps as CA from expansion – except for some courses
where students need to select majors first. However SPs will normally
require further maintenance at some point – particularly if the student takes
a long time to complete and their course is subject to restructure or other
modification before they finish.
We will continue doing a final check prior to graduation until such time as
we think we have SP Mgt down to a fine art!
Page: 6
Student Management User Group
Study Plan Management – Current Issues and Future Considerations
BOND
JCU
3
We would like to move to a fully managed ‘set and forget’ study plan
strategy, but have a number of issues (resourcing, determining
responsibility, training, processes) that need to be resolved first. We
probably have about 20% of study plans fully managed, about 60% initially
expanded and then incrementally managed, and about 20% with no study
plan management at all.
Self management is expected for most students in both time and credit
based courses.
Faculties will maintain study plans as they have the expertise.
2. Regular study plan maintenance activities undertaken for individual students (including manual adjustment of the plan in response to a
student’s request)
Site
Advanced standing
UTS
Processing:
1. Devolved
2. Central
3. Other
1&2
Curtin
Auto-crediting
Study Plan Mgt:
1. Devolved
2. Central
3. Other
1
1
MU
2
INSEARCH
2
SCU
1
2 with some 1
BOND
3
1
1&2
Collated by Pam Rooney, University of Technology Sydney
Student Management User Conference
13-14 September 2006
2
2
1
Comment or Issues relating to the process
Applications are processed by faculties as they have the expert course knowledge. If an application
needs to be processed centrally, the study plan structure is set up by the faculty to ‘receive’ advanced
standing and exemptions appropriately.
If this is not done then advanced standing is not added into the structure – notification is sent to
faculties to restructure the study plan once the data entry has been completed.
Most applications are processed within the Division as staff have expert knowledge of course
structures and approved standards for granting of RPL for particular institutions. If applications are
sent to Central the Study Plan is normally set up at the Division and the RPL has been pre-approved
at the Divisional level. Restructuring may be required and if so this is done at the Division. If a
student changes their major then the RPL is required to be reassessed and the study plan is
restructured according to the major that the student has currently selected.
Primarily central. There are a few specific areas that do their own processing. This is a source of
problems with student plans (mainly due to our processes and need for more training).
Processed by Exemptions Officer or Timetable Co-ordinator.
Moving to greater level of devolution as we develop more familiarity and expertise with the
consequences of student self enrolment
Advanced standing processing is centralised except for one faculty where it is devolved.
Crediting of discontinued subjects must be processed centrally. Some communication of where to
place the subjects on the structure is required.
The ability for students to auto-credit via the web has been turned off as this is not appropriate in
some cases. The use of a system variable to enable this functionality does not offer sufficient
Page: 7
Student Management User Group
Study Plan Management – Current Issues and Future Considerations
Site
Processing:
1. Devolved
2. Central
3. Other
Curtin
Study Plan Mgt:
1. Devolved
2. Central
3. Other
1
MU
2
1
SCU
3
3
BOND
2
1
1
1
Study Package substitution
Curtin
1
MU
2
SCU
2
BOND
1
Study Package structures
with overlapping
components
1
Curtin
Collated by Pam Rooney, University of Technology Sydney
Student Management User Conference
13-14 September 2006
2
1 with 2
backup/advice
1
1
1
Comment or Issues relating to the process
flexibility to allow UTS to use it.
It would be good to have the ability to identify study packages which have been uncredited via
deletion from the study plan – this would indicate a deliberate decision relating to the credit.
This is normally done by staff at the Divisional level and may be required to be reassessed if the
student selects to change their major.
Macquarie allows this for Postgraduates only. Devolved to students and Divisions.
System does auto crediting. We think this is fine! Some issues if passed component is phasing
out/discontinued.
Requests for substitution occur because a required subject may not be offered in a suitable
timeframe or there has been a course change.
These are noted via a Student Comment attached to the Parent Study Package.
Unit substitutions are recorded on the Student Comments window and this is attached to the
student’s current major. The study plan is then amended and the study plan re-approved for
completion to take into consideration the substituted unit. If the student selects to change their major
then the substitution would be reviewed and either refused or approved for the new major and these
changes would be recorded on the comments window as well as the plan. Unit substitutions may
also involve amending the component type via the structure window.
In general, requests for substitution occur at the Course Structure and Planning level due to course
change, not at the student level. Exceptions are Deeming and Savings clauses approved by Senate
for individual cases.
Expect to move slowly to greater reliance on 1 for both SP Mgt and processing
Recent changes to eStudent have resulted in a large number of requests to add majors or submajors
where there is some core component overlap. This has increased the workload for faculty staff as
students cannot proceed to enrol in any subjects within the structure without staff intervention.
UTS would like a more automated workaround. In most cases students should be able to select from
a prescribed list of alternate subjects to replace the overlaps.
In some cases it is inappropriate for students to select particular major/submajor combinations – a
requisite on selection would be helpful in this case.
CBS receives around 1600 to 2000 changes of major per semester and the nature of our course
structures will result in students not being able to enrol in components without staff intervention. A
high level of manual intervention and data integrity is required to set the plan to completion and we
need to ensure that students enrol only in units within their structure (which often relates to a
particular year as a result of course changes) it takes a considerable amount of time to complete this
Page: 8
Student Management User Group
Study Plan Management – Current Issues and Future Considerations
Site
Processing:
1. Devolved
2. Central
3. Other
Study Plan Mgt:
1. Devolved
2. Central
3. Other
MU
2
2
SCU
2
1&2
BOND
3
3
1&3
1
MU
2
2
INSEARCH
2
SCU
2
Study Package Expansion
Curtin
Collated by Pam Rooney, University of Technology Sydney
Student Management User Conference
13-14 September 2006
2
2
Comment or Issues relating to the process
process. Added to this Schools conduct their own individual Boards of Examiners and students’
records should go to the Board for their current major rather than the Board for their new major as the
units may be entirely different within an alternative course structure. This prevents us from changing
majors until all results have been ratified (normally some time into our re-enrolment period). It is
impossible to hold one Board of Examiners due to our large number of students (8500+) – currently 6
of our BOE’s are held over 2-3 days and then offshore BOE’s are also held. Delays in being able to
process results in inaccurate data being reported to Schools in relation to student numbers.
Some students are excluded from undertaking particular majors due to previous poor performance
and we need to ensure that these students do not select inappropriate majors.
This is very confusing to students. We are working with Divisions to try to minimise such situations,
but they still continue. This results in manual intervention being needed to move units between
structures for a student so that they can continue to access the units that they need to enrol in now.
Varies from course to course. Expect to move slowly to greater reliance on 1 for both SP Mgt and
processing.
No regular maintenance activities undertaken – dealt with on an ad-hoc basis by faculty or central
administration when identified
As far as possible, study package expansion is undertaken by the student.
Recent changes to eStudent functionality mean that students are no longer able to expand a study
package if one of the components is already on the study plan and lead to a large increase in the
number of change requests being forwarded to faculties.
Currently divisional staff are responsible for expanding structures. We will look at the bulk
functionality but it appears that this will be limited to expanding the Parent Structure only – we will
require expansion for particular templates at the study package structure level.
Divisional staff alternate and expand study package structures when students change their majors –
a high level of manual intervention is required as the structure may contain inactive versions of units,
we don’t have a choice to bring RPL onto the plan when expanding, alternates are not considered
during expansion so additional units may be added to the plan, electives and options are not
identified and have to be manually set onto the plan, unit subs are often granted and need to be
added to the plan, in some cases RPL and components need to be removed from the plan or enrolled
components need to be removed once their status moves to passed which may some time away.
Done prior to or at student admission. With Macquarie’s flexible degree structure it is not considered
easy to use.
We have outstanding issues registered with Technology One regarding ‘double’ expansion of option
lines and taking items ‘off plan’. (AR 73486 MU2585)
Processed by Registrar & Student Services staff.
We use auto expand for TAC offers. We allow auto expansion for students for structured
components.
Page: 9
Student Management User Group
Study Plan Management – Current Issues and Future Considerations
Site
BOND
Processing:
1. Devolved
2. Central
3. Other
2
Course transfers /conversion
2
Curtin
NA
INSEARCH
2
BOND
Reparenting
NA
2
2
1
2
1
2
SCU
2
1
BOND
2
1
1
1
Curtin
Integrity Checks
Macquarie University uses re-parenting to effect course transfers. We do not use conversion
processing.
Processed by Student Services Manager. Manual and time consuming process.
Only used in exceptional cases eg when org unit changes or students admitted to wrong version of
course.
1
MU
MU
SAU staff do not have the expertise to appropriately structure the study plan once the transfer has
taken place.
1
1
Curtin
Customisation of option lists
for individual students
Comment or Issues relating to the process
1
MU
SCU
Study Plan Mgt:
1. Devolved
2. Central
3. Other
1
2
Macquarie University uses re-parenting for Course Transfers. This is a very tedious, time-consuming
and expensive process. The transfer is carried out by a user area and then sent to a group that has a
high skill level in tidying and restructuring each student’s plan. (Macquarie University currently
manages over 1500 of these within 2 short timeframes.) Refer to AR 87513 – Auto-planning
following Transfer. (MU2693)
Advice is sought from Schools for the mgt of the reparented Study Plan
Not widely used – staff don’t understand it.
Supplementary option list available to individual student that don’t freeze the original list.
Structure list possibility (?)
1
NA
1
Curtin
Collated by Pam Rooney, University of Technology Sydney
Student Management User Conference
13-14 September 2006
NA
1
1
We do not customise option sets for individual students.
UTS have developed a large number of reports to identify possible study plan corruption. Access to
these has been devolved and are used as part of the bi-annual ‘clean up process’.
Examples:
Study package structures that do not contain the correct number of credit points
Study plans with multiple planned attempts of a study package, or planned attempts of old versions of
study packages.
Off plan passes and subject exemptions.
Divisional staff conduct integrity checks (bi-annually/immediate). Due to the large number of students
Page: 10
Student Management User Group
Study Plan Management – Current Issues and Future Considerations
Processing:
1. Devolved
2. Central
3. Other
Site
Study Plan Mgt:
1. Devolved
2. Central
3. Other
MU
2
2
INSEARCH
2
SCU
2
2
BOND
3
3
2
Comment or Issues relating to the process
and study plans we do this online using search criteria (quicker and data amended easier).
Combinations of S1 worksheets and excel spreadsheets are used then electronic reports if necessary
(time consuming). SQL’s enable specific identification and retrieval of required data.
Preset reports are run after each semester enrolment cycle. This generates lists of student plans that
require examination, analysis and usually correction. (Refer to Integrity)
Reports are not used for integrity checking. Errors are found on an adhoc basis, usually when the
system prevents a user saving the study plan.
Checks done at graduation by Central or an ad-hoc basis by faculties.
3. Periodic study plan maintenance activities which affect student cohorts.
Site
Expansion of the study plan prior
to or at admission
1. Bulk SSP
Processing
2. Expansion
via TAC
upload
3. Individual
expansion
4. Customised
study plan
for individual
students
Processing
Comment/Issues
It is necessary to use a combination of the 3 processes indicated. Expansion via the TAC Upload
has not been implemented as yet due to concerns over who is responsible for maintaining the data
on the Course Cross Reference file.
The complexity of the study plan initiation process is a significant barrier to overcome.
1, 3 & 4
Staffing constraints require that we move towards a more automated solution. However, this means
that a data entry task (expansion) is replaced by a number of skilled tasks which required training
and additional access.
Use of Bulk expansion cannot be devolved as this functionality also allows access to a number of
other bulk processes.
Going to 1 & 2 will probably have limited benefit for Parent Study Packages that have structured
study packages within them – for CBS this will be the bulk of study plans.
Curtin
MU
3&4
1,2,3
Need to be able to print study plan report at status of applied and offered, currently this can only be
done at a status of admitted even if modify criteria is amended to select status of offered or applied.
(JN) [Note: this is a Curtin report and can be amended]. We pre-process RPL for students but many
have outstanding results and we require a print out of their study plan reports for staff use.
Actions 1, 2 and 3 are currently under review as we move forward to use the web for new admits.
4 – never used. Not planning to use.
Collated by Pam Rooney, University of Technology Sydney
Student Management User Conference
13-14 September 2006
Page: 11
Student Management User Group
Study Plan Management – Current Issues and Future Considerations
INSEAR
SCU
Replace a planned attempt of a
phasing out study package version
on the study plan with the new
active version
1. Bulk Global
replace
2. Individually
replace
3. Other
3
2, 3 and 4
1
MU
1 and 2
Curtin
1
End of 2005 action 2 had to be taken for over 700 students for just one case of a set of unit choices
becoming a unit – retrospectively.
Common practice is to let existing students complete the version of the course that they began. New
students are individually transferred to the new active version of the course if already admitted to the
previous version.
2 only done if numbers are small
If a student fails a subject the same version is returned to the plan regardless of the stage of the
study package version. ie phasing out version.
The timing of this process is critical and any reduction in the amount of study plan clean up required
would be of benefit to staff.
This process is run multiple times after result ratification – result is that we have to monitor this
situation via study plan integrity reports and manually adjust or run the bulk process above.
Monitor reports and manually adjust
MU
2
We are still waiting for an effective StudentOne solution to adding failed units back to the plan.
INSEAR
SCU
Clean up after Consequential
Withdrawal process
1. Devolved
2. Central
3. Other
3
1, 2
1
INSEAR
SCU
Change to study package structure
as a result of a curriculum change
1. Devolved
2. Central
3. Other
Collated by Pam Rooney, University of Technology Sydney
Student Management User Conference
13-14 September 2006
2 for TAC offers, 3 for directs, except 4 for students with advanced standing or course transfers.
UTS policy has been that students are not enrolled in phasing out versions of subject. Therefore,
Bulk SSP Global Replacement functionality is used extensively to update study plans following a
change in subject version. This process currently updates planned attempts in withdrawn courses.
Cannot limit worksheet selection by SSPP status or stage. Should be only looking at admitted
students. Process is a bit clumsy.
Require worksheet selection to be limited by SSPP status and/or stage.
Action 1 is the preferred approach. Action 2 is taken where it is NOT a ‘unit for unit’ replacement. We
use action 2 where a unit now becomes an alternate or set of unit choices (or vice versa), because
global replace doesn’t support this function.
1
Curtin
Expanded manually by Registrar / Student Services staff on admission.
2
3
1
Curtin
1
MU
2
Bulk Ratification is used without issues.
We don’t do this. We let the system handle it. (Maybe we will find out down the track that we need to
do more?!)
While the theory is that student should complete the course structure that they began, the reality is
that in many cases components of the old structure become unavailable and it can not be sustained.
This is a recognised cost
If units available students should complete course structure when they commenced but often units or
majors become unavailable or student progress enables them to complete on a new structure. Also
may be changes to credit value which impacts which structure student required to complete.
Tightly controlled process.
Changes that are effective in the future are not a problem..
Page: 12
Student Management User Group
Study Plan Management – Current Issues and Future Considerations
Retrospective changes are very expensive as we have to change individual Students’ plans.
INSEAR
SCU
Major changes at the course level
such as a change to Org Unit
1.
2.
3.
Transfer
Reparent
No
Transition
3
2
Existing students usually complete the course structure/version that they began.
On advice from 1. In the future, we may move to a greater involvement of 1 for processing the non
standard students.
3
Option 3 if possible – option 2 as a last resort.
Curtin
3
Option 1 and 2 as last resort
MU
3
SCU
3
Major changes are new courses. They are not retrospective.
We leave them as they are – create a current version of the expired org unit. Amend award org. If
large volumes of changes are involved (eg, whenever we have an academic restructure) we use
scripts –mainly for units, unit availabilities, planned sspc’s and future EP’s.
4. Other points for discussion
CURTIN:
Refer to comments provided at User Group Meeting April, 2006 from Curtin as some comments were made in relation to study plan management and associated
enrolment process requirements for CI.
JAMES COOK UNI
1. Common units in majors
2. Restrict structured component by default location of parent student study package ie when creating structured components, to be able to assign location/s (campus code/s)
to them which will restrict their expansion on a study plan or selection in an option line, to only those with locations matching the parent student study package
Collated by Pam Rooney, University of Technology Sydney
Student Management User Conference
13-14 September 2006
Page: 13