Defining and Aligning Expectations: A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Study of the Expectations of Professional Academic Advisors and Undergraduate Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation investigated the expectations both professional academic advisors and undergraduate students, respectively, possessed of academic advising and of the advisor role. As students come to their postsecondary endeavors with increased needs, expectations, and consumer-mentalities, it is important to understand their expectations – and meet those expectations – to improve student satisfaction with advising (Propp & Rhodes, 2006). Given the increased use of professional academic advisors across higher education institutions, the literature does not speak to their expectations of academic advising. It is also difficult to ascertain how to best perform academic advising to meet student expectations in various contexts because there is a lack of standardization within the academic advising profession (Johnson et al., 2019). Although mass standardization is not the goal (Menke, Duslak, & McGill, 2020), academic advising should be purposefully structured based on institutional and student characteristics (Ender, Winston & Miller, 1982), the strengths of different advisor types (Allen & Smith, 2008a; Reinarz, 2000), and student needs (NACADA, 2005) and expectations (Anderson et al., 2014). Therefore, this hermeneutic phenomenological study explored students’ and professional academic advisors’ expectations of academic advising and of the advisor’s role. Through document review, semi-structured interviews, reflective journaling, and member reflections, I analyzed the lived experiences of students and advisors in order to understand how their expectations converge and diverge. Two of the main findings of the study were a.) previous experiences, in various ways, informed both advisor and student expectations, and b.) student and advisor expectations were aligned in terms of important skills for advisors to demonstrate and important outcomes of academic advising. The results of the study have future implications to inform advisor training and development, and the way in which advising is formally structured across and within various institutions to meet students’ needs and expectations of academic advising.
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 | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".