Exploring the Experiences of Higher Education Students Involved with the Development of a Responsive and Student-Centered Learning Support Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored the perceptions and experiences of students with college support services. The researcher identified and presented training for students who had been involved with student support services for more than one academic year, to act as focus group facilitators. Another group of students who had received support services for less than one academic year, was involved in the study as focus group participants. Two general themes and five subthemes emerged from the data analysis. These include the general theme Supportive Campus Environment (three subthemes: feeling isolated and alone; open academic and personal support; and visibility/availability of support services), and the general theme Student-Faculty/Staff Interaction (two subthemes: concerns with stigma; awareness and empathy). Data derived from the focus group sessions clearly demonstrates that interaction with faculty and staff and the visibility and availability of services are vital toward enhancing the use of support services. Additionally, obstacles such as time constraints, awareness of services, and concerns with stigmatization present barriers to seeking service. The findings of this research are compared to similar, important studies previously conducted in Alberta, Toronto, and Surrey, United Kingdom in order to draw significant conclusions about potential opportunities to create student centered support services.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".