“When You Fail, You Feel Like a Failure” : One Student’s Experience of Academic Probation and an Academic Support Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This in-depth, qualitative study explored the experience of academic probation. It recounts the story of Mark, an undergraduate student on academic probation who participated in an academic support program to attain good academic standing. His story is contrasted to the current literature on academic probation and is considered in light of Dewey’s (1958,1938/1997, 1934/2005) theory of experience. This paper offers an important contribution to the literature on higher education by revealing a rich, complex, and unique experience which illustrates that Mark does not correspond to the typical image of probationary students depicted in the literature. This article breaks away from an oversimplified portrayal of probationary students, offers a provisional conceptualization of academic probation, and calls for further definition of the notion of academic probation. Cette étude qualitative et détaillée a porté sur l’expérience de la probation académique. Elle évoque l’histoire de Mark, un étudiant du premier cycle en probation académique qui a participé à un programme d’appui académique en vue d’améliorer son rendement. Nous comparons son histoire à la littérature actuelle sur la probation académique et l’examinons à la lumière de la théorie de l’expérience de Dewey (1958; 1938/1997; 1934/2005). Cet article représente une contribution importante à la littérature sur l’enseignement supérieur en décrivant une expérience riche, complexe et unique qui démontre que Mark ne correspond pas à l’image type des étudiants en probation tel qu’illustrée dans la littérature. Cet article s’éloigne de la représentation exagérément simplifiée des étudiants en probation, offre une conceptualisation provisoire de la probation académique et évoque le besoin d’une nouvelle définition de la notion de la probation académique.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".