STUDENT SPIRITUALITY: A ROLE FOR ADMINISTRATORS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spirituality is an integral component of student identity, academic success, and well-being. This study’s review of literature discovered research that focused on the impact of the organizational culture, development of identity, cultural awareness, equity, holistic education, and leadership on developing student spirituality while identifying a gap in the literature that focused on community college administrators (chairs, deans, directors, and managers). The purpose of this research, framed by the research questions, was to gain a better understanding of the perspectives, potential role and contributions of college administrators toward developing student spirituality. The data for this descriptive phenomenological qualitative study was collected through semi-structured interviews with 12 administrators at a medium sized community college in the Greater Toronto Area. Four NVivo analytic techniques were applied to the data utilizing a duo method (traditional and computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software) for thematic analysis. The findings of this study presented five themes: A Culture of Spirituality, Indigenization, Start the Conversation, Meaningful Learning and Sharing and The Administrator’s Role. From the findings, this study recommends that students and administrators need to; understand the role of the emerging departments that support student success, be self-aware before being equipped to support the well-being of others, and provide a safe and inclusive space for all to discuss spirituality with the overarching goal being that all feel connected to each other, the land and potentially the universe. To move the spiritual movement forward, there may be benefit in higher education sharing their resources, tools, and strategies for developing student spirituality and most importantly, the metrics for measuring impact. This study poses that embedding Indigenous ways of knowing and learning across the institution may be the approach that responds to the needs of both the individual and collective good, suggesting further research in this area.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".