Academic advising for Arts undergraduate students at English-speaking Canadian public universities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This is the first Canadian study to determine current procedures and practice in for undergraduate students in the Faculty of Arts English-speaking Canadian public universities. and to determine Arts advisors' perceptions of the impact of academic advising on student development and retention. A questionnaire was mailed to 82 academic advisors at 41 English public universities across Canada. Responses received represented 73% of eligible universities. Personal interviews followed with nine volunteers. Results showed that academic advising practice is not guided by formal policy that links the service to university and faculty goals. Instead, advising is evolving in response to the call for university accountability. Advising practices appear to be changing to meet the expectations and demands from students that their undergraduate experience facilitates the achievement of academic goals in association with career goals and other personal goals. Despite the lack of guiding policy on Arts academic advising, there is considerable amount of consistency in current practice across Canada. Advising is primarily a Faculty responsibility and the responsibility for delivering general academic advice has largely shifted from professors to professional advisors. Advisors have a broad range of responsibilities and extensive decision-making authority, especially in the areas of program planning with students, and in interpreting and applying policies and procedures. The hours that students can gain access to advising differs among Arts advising units. However, the methods of delivering advice are similar. In all advising units the student to advisor ratio is extremely high. Most units are responsible for providing the service to thousand of students. Arts advisors are also extensively involved a variety of outreach and liaison activities directed at potential and current students and the broader university community and the public. Arts academic advisors believe that advising improves student persistence to degree completion and hence also improves university retention rates. At the same time, some advisors perceive that central administration does not recognize the importance of the service and that this lack of recognition combined with heavy advising loads, complex policy and program regulations, and shrinking resources affects the quality of academic advising. Despite the difficulties mentioned by advisors, many advising units have initiatives in place to expand their academic advising service through joint strategies with other student services that will link students' short-term and long-term academic, career and life plans. The study concludes with recommendations on developing academic policy and programs, as well providing suggestions for further research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».