Opt-in intervention saves thousands for no-show students

“Nudge” interventions can prevent disengaged students from racking up pointless debt while helping to preserve universities’ reputations and taxpayers’ money, an Australian “action research study” suggests.

The Charles Sturt University (CSU) study, published in the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, targeted “zero-fail” students – those on track to receive grades of 0 out of 100 because they had not submitted any work.

Almost 600 such students were contacted a month or so after their units had begun in 2022 and 2023, and instructed to confirm their intentions to continue. Thirty-five per cent did not reply and had their enrolments deferred or cancelled without incurring debt.

Another 37 per cent chose to delay their studies or withdraw. The remaining 160-odd students opted to continue, with most submitting one-page “study planners” outlining how they intended to meet assessment requirements. More than 70 per cent of these students went on to fail all their units.

The team calculated that the intervention had reduced CSU’s zero-fail rate by about 10 per cent. Lead researcher Neil van der Ploeg said the research illustrated the potential of learning analytics to help prevent unnecessary student debt, particularly in underprivileged communities.

The Australian Universities Accord set a target for under-represented groups – such as indigenous Australians and people with disabilities – to reach “parity representation” in universities by 2050. Research suggests that students from these groups disproportionately attract zero-fail results, often because “life stressors” derail their study intentions.

New legislation requires universities to enact support policies for struggling students. Institutions risk A$19,800 (£10,085) fines if inadequate application of the policies leads to student failure.

Van der Ploeg, academic lead of CSU’s student success division, said universities were unlikely to be penalised if they were “doing the right thing by their students. I think the government [wants]…to see universities genuinely take interest [in] supporting students. A big part of it is making sure that universities track and measure what they’re doing”.

He said administrators needed to work quickly to identify at-risk students. The CSU approach gave participants a fortnight’s grace in withdrawing after the “census date” when students become liable for tuition fees, typically three or four weeks after classes begin.

Universities also needed to avoid perceptions that they were undermining students’ autonomy or targeting personal characteristics like race or disability. CSU selected students purely on academic indicators, including missed assessments and non-engagement with the learning management system.

Van der Ploeg said many had been grateful to have their debts excused after missing the census date. “Most of our students at Charles Sturt are part-time. If things get really hectic for them, [study] can go to the bottom of the priority list.”

He said the biggest surprise was that so many students had responded to the intervention and actively withdrawn after ignoring repeated requests to attend classes or submit assignments. “They didn’t need to respond – they could have had the same outcome if they’d said nothing.”

Most had chosen to defer or take leave rather than completely withdrawing. “They wanted to study, but…now wasn’t right.”

The study found that continuing undergraduates and even postgraduates struggled as much as first-time students with disengagement and questions over whether to withdraw.

“Universities attempting to reduce zero-fails and support student decision-making around census date should not limit their scope to commencing or undergraduate students,” the paper says.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com