Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the experience of leadership coaching of secondary school principals. Twelve secondary principals who worked in Ontario along with five coaches who worked with secondary principals in Ontario schools were interviewed to solicit their ideas. The study was based on the main research question: How does leadership coaching as a professional development strategy support secondary principals? This was followed by three sub-questions: (1) How do secondary school principals describe their experience with leadership coaching? (2) How do coaches describe their experience with leadership coaching? (3) In the coaching process, to what extent do secondary principals and coaches believe that a change has occurred with secondary principalâ s leadership practices and beliefs?\nMost participants reported having a positive experience with coaching although some were hesitant with working with a coach initially. It was found that newer principals felt that coaching was more beneficially to support their work than more seasoned principals did as newer principals felt that the support of the coach helped with the steep learning curve. Some of the seasoned principals felt they were well-versed and confident in their work already. As well, a positive coaching relationship and a positive coachee disposition were key factors to ensure coaching success. \nIt was found that coaching supported principals navigating through the challenges especially with resistive staff. It also helped with alleviating the loneliness of the job as it carried with it a social element for the principal. Changes to principal practices and beliefs were noted by most participants with a few participants indicated that no change resulted from the use of a coach. The study concludes with the notion that coaching is a good form of professional support for novice or seasoned principals should there be interest and quality coaching.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».