Research on the Evaluation Mechanism of College Counselor Work Performance Empowered by Artificial Intelligence
Journal: Journal of Higher Education Research DOI: 10.32629/jher.v7i3.5300
Abstract
With the expansion of higher education and the increasing complexity of student affairs, the performance evaluation of college counselors needs to become more scientific, dynamic, and evidence-based. Traditional evaluation methods often rely on periodic reports, subjective judgment, and fragmented data, which may weaken fairness and timeliness. This study develops an artificial intelligence-enabled evaluation mechanism for college counselor work performance. Based on public higher education statistics, policy requirements, and an institutional case from Sichuan Vocational College of Culture and Communication, the paper proposes a multidimensional evaluation framework covering workload, responsiveness, student feedback, professional development, and ethics control. A weighted index model is designed to support process-based evaluation and decision feedback. The study argues that AI can improve evaluation accuracy and efficiency, but it should function as a supportive tool rather than a substitute for human judgment. A human-machine collaborative mechanism is therefore necessary for fair and developmental counselor evaluation.
Keywords
artificial intelligence; college counselor; performance evaluation; higher education governance; student affairs
Full Text
PDF - Viewed/Downloaded: 0 TimesReferences
[1] Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2024). China has over 47 million higher-education students in 2023.
[2] Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 30–40.
[3] Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2010). Educational data mining: A review of the state of the art. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 40(6), 601–618.
[4] OECD. (2021). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots. Paris: OECD Publishing.
[5] Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Boston: Center for Curriculum Redesign.
[6] UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research. Paris: UNESCO.
[7] Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1510–1529.
[2] Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 30–40.
[3] Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2010). Educational data mining: A review of the state of the art. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 40(6), 601–618.
[4] OECD. (2021). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots. Paris: OECD Publishing.
[5] Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Boston: Center for Curriculum Redesign.
[6] UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research. Paris: UNESCO.
[7] Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1510–1529.
Copyright © 2026 Xiaojuan Luo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
