A Study of the Factors and Conditions Associated with Graduate Enrollment Management Practitioners’ Participation in Professional Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation was designed to determine the factors and conditions associated with graduate enrollment management practitioners’ participation in professional development ( PD ) activities. The sample consisted of members of a professional association, the National Association of Graduate Admissions Professionals ( NAGAP ), focused solely on supporting graduate enrollment managers and related staff, whose patterns of involvement in various PD events for the previous five years were classified as low or inconsistent. In an effort to identify member preferences, as well as characteristics associated with PD activities, the investigator sought to provide information useful to developing future PD programs for NAGAP . An electronic quantitative instrument, the Professional Development in Graduate Enrollment Management ( PDGEM ) survey, consisted of closed‐ended questions related to PD grouped under the following headings: Demographic Information, Support for and Knowledge of Professional Development Activities, Attitudes and Beliefs about Professional Development: Individual and Institutional, Components of Professional Development in Graduate Enrollment Management, Professional Development Plans, Participation and Involvement in NAGAP Professional Development Activities, Other Organizations’ Professional Development, and Professional Development Overall. It was disseminated to 1,461 members of NAGAP , with a return rate of 163 (11%). Descriptive and linear regression analyses were conducted in order to discern (1) the frequency of participation in PD and (2) the demographic and other variables predictive of participation in PD . The study's findings revealed that about one‐quarter of the respondents participated regularly in NAGAP ‐sponsored PD and that the involvement levels of the remainder of the membership were inconsistent. Additionally, on‐site activities were favored over online, content relevance greatly influenced whether practitioners participated, and member interest in conducting academic research was low. Cost was also a primary factor in determining participation in professional development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".