MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3183131609

Holding the reins of the professional learning community: principals' perceptions of the normative imperative to develop schools as professional learning communities

2007· dissertation· en· W3183131609 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jerome Cranston

Notice bibliographique

RevueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2007
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducation Systems and Policy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésProfessional learning communityNormativePerceptionProfessional developmentPedagogyPsychologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsSociologyMedical educationMedicineLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This study compared the findings from the literature review in the area of schools as professional learning communities, using specifically Toole and Louis’ (2002) definition of a professional learning community, with the perceptions of twelve Manitoba school principals of the normative imperative to develop their schools as professional learning communities and their perceptions of the reality of administrative practice. Toole and Louis propose that a professional learning community is a concept composed of three interdependent domains, namely a school culture that emphasizes professionalism is client centered and knowledge based, additionally it emphasizes learning by placing a high value on teacher inquiry and reflection, and finally it is communitarian insofar as it emphasizes personal connections. Furthermore, this definition is built on the notion that there are preconditions, structural supports and human and social resources, necessary for professional learning communities. Grounded theory served as both the theoretical structure and research design to gain an understanding of principals’ thinking (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). principals participated in this study in two focus groups (six principals in each focus group), and twelve interviews. Each focus group and interview was transcribed, and content analysis was employed to identify commonalities and differences in the data (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003). Using open, axial, and selective coding eight themes were identified based on the responses to the research questions (Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This study revealed some consistency between the information cited in the literature, with specific focus on Toole and Louis’ (2002) definition, and principals’ perceptions of their schools as professional learning communities. The participants perceived of a professional learning community as being comprised of three interdependent domains, which are professional, learning and community, and as requiring necessary structural supports and human and social resources as preconditions. They identified time, teacher empowerment, interconnected teacher roles, school plans and institutional identity as structural supports. They also viewed trust and respect, and supportive principal leadership as human and social resource preconditions for schools striving to become professional learning communities. The study revealed conflict between the beliefs of the principals and conceptions of professional learning communities as theoretically constructed in the literature. The participants perceived that while a professional learning community is multidimensional, its effectiveness is not necessarily tied to measures of student achievement. There appeared to be few differences between the participants’ perceptions when separated by gender, school type (public or private) and school size (small, medium or large). The participants appeared to have limited notions of professional learning communities and as a result it is hard to make a case that professional learning communities exist in these schools. Additionally, they saw the duty to evaluate teachers as fostering the development of a professional learning community. Finally, while professional learning communities may hold the best promise for sustaining school improvement efforts (Hord, 2004), the efforts associated with nurturing one will lack results if principals do not possess the clarity of what is required for a school to become a professional learning community.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,023
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,023
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,119

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0230,031
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,006
Communication savante0,0090,005
Science ouverte0,0010,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,346
Écart entre enseignants0,308 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMspace (University of Manitoba)Même sujetEducation Systems and PolicyTravaux en français237 207