Matching Items (5)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Higher Education Administration
- Creators: Bozeman, Barry
- Creators: Puckett, Kathleen
Description
The theory of learning centered academic advising states that the purpose of advising is to teach undergraduate students about the logic and purpose of their education. Previous scholarship on learning centered advising has focused on the theoretical or on implementation by faculty at small colleges and universities. Methods for supporting learning centered advising in other contexts are lacking. This mixed methods, action research study investigates the efficacy of FaculTea, a professional development program designed to promote learning centered advising practices among professional academic advisors at a large state university. The study also measured frequency of learning centered advising and student perceptions of learning centered advising. Participants were 57 academic advisors in a liberal arts and sciences college at a large state university, who reported on their advising practices. In addition, the investigator interviewed four advisors, and observed them during 15 advising appointments. Also, six students were interviewed to determine their response to learning centered academic advising. Results showed the FaculTea program model was effective in promoting learning centered advising. In addition, advisors used learning centered advising to a moderate extent, depending upon the context of the appointment, the developmental level of the student, and experience level of the advisor. Student responses varied. These findings suggest learning centered advising can be incorporated into various academic advising contexts and structures and that FaculTea is an excellent model for learning centered academic advisor professional development.
ContributorsVoller, Julie Givans (Author) / Puckett, Kathleen (Thesis advisor) / Nutt, Charlie (Committee member) / Hermann, Ria (Committee member) / Mathur, Sarup (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
The three essays in this dissertation each examine how aspects of contemporary administrative structure within American research universities affect faculty outcomes. Specific aspects of administrative structure tested in this dissertation include the introduction of new administrative roles, administrative intensity (i.e. relative size of university administration), and competing roles between faculty, administrators, and staff. Using quantitative statistical methods these aspects of administrative structure are tested for their effects on academic grant productivity, faculty job stress, and faculty job satisfaction. Administrative datasets and large scale national surveys make up the data for these studies and quantitative statistical methods confirm most of the hypothesized relationships.
In the first essay, findings from statistical modeling using instrumental variables suggest that academic researchers who receive administrative support for grant writing and management obtain fewer grants and have a lower success rate. However, the findings also suggest that the grants these researchers do receive are much larger in terms of dollars. The results indicate that administrative support is particularly beneficial in academic grant situations of high-risk, high-reward. In the second essay, ordered logit models reveal a statistically significant and stronger relationship between staff intensity (i.e., the ratio of faculty to staff workers) and faculty stress than the relationship between executive intensity (i.e., the ratio faculty to executive and managerial workers) and faculty job stress. These findings confirm theory that the work of faculty is more loosely coupled with the work of executives than it is with staff workers. A possible explanation is the increase in administrative work faculty must take on as there are fewer staff workers to take on administrative tasks. And finally, in the third essay results from multi-level modeling confirm that both role clarity and institutional support positively affect both a global measure of faculty job satisfaction and faculty satisfaction with how their work time is allocated. Understanding the effects that administrative structure has on faculty outcomes will aid universities as faculty administrative burdens ebb and flow in reaction to macro trends in higher education, such as unbundling of faculty roles, unbundling of services, neoliberalism, liberal arts decline, and administrative bloat.
In the first essay, findings from statistical modeling using instrumental variables suggest that academic researchers who receive administrative support for grant writing and management obtain fewer grants and have a lower success rate. However, the findings also suggest that the grants these researchers do receive are much larger in terms of dollars. The results indicate that administrative support is particularly beneficial in academic grant situations of high-risk, high-reward. In the second essay, ordered logit models reveal a statistically significant and stronger relationship between staff intensity (i.e., the ratio of faculty to staff workers) and faculty stress than the relationship between executive intensity (i.e., the ratio faculty to executive and managerial workers) and faculty job stress. These findings confirm theory that the work of faculty is more loosely coupled with the work of executives than it is with staff workers. A possible explanation is the increase in administrative work faculty must take on as there are fewer staff workers to take on administrative tasks. And finally, in the third essay results from multi-level modeling confirm that both role clarity and institutional support positively affect both a global measure of faculty job satisfaction and faculty satisfaction with how their work time is allocated. Understanding the effects that administrative structure has on faculty outcomes will aid universities as faculty administrative burdens ebb and flow in reaction to macro trends in higher education, such as unbundling of faculty roles, unbundling of services, neoliberalism, liberal arts decline, and administrative bloat.
ContributorsTaggart, Gabel (Author) / Welch, Eric (Thesis advisor) / Bozeman, Barry (Committee member) / Ott, Molly (Committee member) / Stritch, Justin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
The amount of time and effort that university researchers spend writing grants and executing grant administration responsibilities is one of the biggest challenges for science policy. This study aims to explore the complexity of the phenomenon of burdens in the administrative procedure for principal investigators (PIs) in sponsored research. The findings make a theoretical contribution to the study of burdens and red tape by closely examining the processes in which the burdens emerge, increase, and decrease; in doing so, this research will lay the groundwork for future studies of burdens and sponsored research systems. This study assumes that burdens are embedded in the social process, not merely in the number of required documentation or time spent on the procedure. The two overarching research questions are as follows: (1) What do researchers perceive or experience as a burden in grant proposal preparation and submission in sponsored research? (2) What are the possible factors or hypotheses to explain the generation, increase, and decrease of burdens? This single case study of a large research university examines the burdens faced by university researchers as they prepare and submit grant proposals. Primary data comes from semi-structured interviews with thirty-one PIs in science and engineering schools, and four interviews with research administration staff. Based on the interview data and theoretical arguments, this study illustrates the burdens in two categories: Burdens related to the proposal system, rules, and requirements; and burdens PIs experience with pre-award staff and relations. In addition, this study assesses each PI’s burden level in terms of the number of tasks in the proposal process, and the quality of the pre-award staff and services the PI experiences. This study further examines possible contributing factors and tentative hypotheses of burdens. In the discussion, this study develops theoretical arguments about the nature and consequences of burdens and fundamental issues in the grant system, and discuss prescriptions for PIs, universities, and sponsored research systems.
ContributorsFukumoto, Eriko (Author) / Bozeman, Barry (Thesis advisor) / Welch, Eric (Committee member) / Anderson, Derrick M (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Honors colleges have offered an academically rigorous option for growing numbers of diverse students. This study took place at a large, public university that required undergraduate students to complete a thesis to graduate from the honors college. In 2017, 97% of students who began the honors thesis prior to senior year completed it. Thus, the aim of this study was to help more students begin the honors thesis process early.
Thesis Launch was a six-week intervention that was designed to provide support for students in the critical early steps of thesis work such as brainstorming topics, examining professors’ research interests, reaching out to professors, preparing for meetings with potential thesis committee members, and writing a thesis prospectus. Thesis Launch offered web-based resources, weekly emails and text message reminders, and was supplemented by in-person advising options.
A mixed methods action research study was conducted to examine: (a) students’ perceptions of barriers that prevented beginning thesis work; (b) self-efficacy towards thesis work; (c) how to scale the intervention using technology; and (d) whether participants began the thesis early. Quantitative data was collected via pre- and post-intervention surveys, journals, and prospectus submissions. Qualitative data came from student interviews, journals, and open-ended questions on the surveys.
Quantitative data showed that after students participated in Thesis Launch, they had higher self-efficacy to work with professors, perceived fewer barriers to thesis work, and greater proportions of students began thesis work early. The qualitative data were complementary and showed that participants overcame barriers to thesis initiation, built self-efficacy, preferred an online intervention, and began thesis work early. Findings also showed that a primarily technology-based intervention was preferred by students and showed promise for scaling to a larger audience.
Thesis Launch provided a framework for students to begin work on the honors thesis and have mastery experiences to build self-efficacy. Strategies that fostered “small wins” and reflective efforts also assisted in this aim. Participants accomplished tasks tied to thesis work and customized their personal thesis timelines based on work begun during Thesis Launch. Finally, a discussion of limitations, implications for practice and research, and personal reflection was included.
Thesis Launch was a six-week intervention that was designed to provide support for students in the critical early steps of thesis work such as brainstorming topics, examining professors’ research interests, reaching out to professors, preparing for meetings with potential thesis committee members, and writing a thesis prospectus. Thesis Launch offered web-based resources, weekly emails and text message reminders, and was supplemented by in-person advising options.
A mixed methods action research study was conducted to examine: (a) students’ perceptions of barriers that prevented beginning thesis work; (b) self-efficacy towards thesis work; (c) how to scale the intervention using technology; and (d) whether participants began the thesis early. Quantitative data was collected via pre- and post-intervention surveys, journals, and prospectus submissions. Qualitative data came from student interviews, journals, and open-ended questions on the surveys.
Quantitative data showed that after students participated in Thesis Launch, they had higher self-efficacy to work with professors, perceived fewer barriers to thesis work, and greater proportions of students began thesis work early. The qualitative data were complementary and showed that participants overcame barriers to thesis initiation, built self-efficacy, preferred an online intervention, and began thesis work early. Findings also showed that a primarily technology-based intervention was preferred by students and showed promise for scaling to a larger audience.
Thesis Launch provided a framework for students to begin work on the honors thesis and have mastery experiences to build self-efficacy. Strategies that fostered “small wins” and reflective efforts also assisted in this aim. Participants accomplished tasks tied to thesis work and customized their personal thesis timelines based on work begun during Thesis Launch. Finally, a discussion of limitations, implications for practice and research, and personal reflection was included.
ContributorsEardley, Trisha Lynn (Author) / Buss, Ray (Thesis advisor) / Henderson, Mark (Committee member) / Johnson, Melissa (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
First-generation college students are an underrepresented group in terms of study
abroad participation nationally and at Arizona State University (ASU). The ASU and
International Studies Abroad (ISA) Planning Scholars Scholarship Program was
developed to support first-generation college students in their pursuit of study abroad.
This mixed-methods study examined what the specific needs of first-generation college
students are as they pursue study abroad experiences and what effect the ASU and ISA
Planning Scholars Program had on them. A combination of surveys, semi-structured
interviews, and a photovoice project provided data for the study. Key findings included
that first-generation college students had concerns about finances, finding a study abroad
program that would keep them on track for graduation, making friends while they study
abroad, and traveling abroad alone. The study indicated that the Planning Scholars
program did increase students’ confidence in pursuing study abroad. Additionally, the
theory of First-Generation Strength was developed which suggests that first-generation
college students possess certain strengths and capital that help them overcome a variety
of new obstacles and make them an ideal candidate for study abroad due to their
experiences with having to navigate new contexts, such as going to college,
independently.
abroad participation nationally and at Arizona State University (ASU). The ASU and
International Studies Abroad (ISA) Planning Scholars Scholarship Program was
developed to support first-generation college students in their pursuit of study abroad.
This mixed-methods study examined what the specific needs of first-generation college
students are as they pursue study abroad experiences and what effect the ASU and ISA
Planning Scholars Program had on them. A combination of surveys, semi-structured
interviews, and a photovoice project provided data for the study. Key findings included
that first-generation college students had concerns about finances, finding a study abroad
program that would keep them on track for graduation, making friends while they study
abroad, and traveling abroad alone. The study indicated that the Planning Scholars
program did increase students’ confidence in pursuing study abroad. Additionally, the
theory of First-Generation Strength was developed which suggests that first-generation
college students possess certain strengths and capital that help them overcome a variety
of new obstacles and make them an ideal candidate for study abroad due to their
experiences with having to navigate new contexts, such as going to college,
independently.
ContributorsRausch, Kyle (Author) / Puckett, Kathleen (Thesis advisor) / Lynch, Jacquelyn S (Committee member) / Smith, Sharon (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017