School Leaders’ Experiences Leading After a Traumatic Event: A Posttraumatic Growth Perspective
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to explore school leaders’ experiences of posttraumatic growth following a traumatic event in their schools. Traumatic events sometimes impact schools because of natural and human-made disasters, and various kinds of violence (Webber & Mascari, 2018) and school leaders (principals and vice/assistant principals) are pivotal responders when traumatic events are connected to their schools. They are the known entity in the school building, and necessarily move between responding to district or medical directives, and parent, student, and community needs after an event occurs. While it is expected that principals will experience some negative impacts because of a traumatic event in their school (Brown, 2018, Tarrant, 2011a & 2011b), it was not known whether a positive legacy of trauma (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2013) may also arise for some after a traumatic event. This study used a posttraumatic growth perspective which suggests that some individuals will experience growth after they experience a crisis or traumatic event. The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) has been used with numerous populations, and after a variety of traumatic events. It has five factors which are, an appreciation for life, a changed sense of priorities, more meaningful relationships, a recognition of new paths or life possibilities, and spiritual development (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). This study used an interpretive description approach (Thorne, 2016). Phase one of the study involved an online survey that was sent to approximately 11,000 individuals across Canada and the United States through the North American Centre for Threat Assessment and Trauma Response (NACTATR). On their distribution list were 375 “school administrators”. Based on the demographic questions completed by survey participants, it appeared all who completed the survey were, or had been, school administrators. One-hundred-nineteen participants began the survey, and 96 completed most of the survey. The nine demographic questions were analyzed using SPSS, and the PTGI (21-items in the survey) was summed for an overall score. It was determined that this sample of school leaders indicated limited posttraumatic growth after the traumatic event they identified for the survey. This sample indicated their posttraumatic growth falling between: I experienced this change to a very small degree as a result of my crisis, and I experienced this change to a small degree as a result of my crisis. Phase two of the study involved ten one-on-one interviews with school leaders (five principals and five vice/assistant principals). The participant volunteers were drawn from the survey participants. All interviews were with Canadian school leaders from four provinces in Canada. Interview participants indicated areas of stress and strain, and growth or change as a result of the traumatic event they identified. The interview data were analysed through an in-depth, immersive, interpretive process. Three domains were described: 1) personal and professional transformations, 2) relationship transformations, and 3) school district impacts on school leaders. The study’s findings provide valuable insights into the realities of school leaders’ experiences leading through traumatic events and the personal and professional toll on them in the aftermath. It also provides insight into how leaders may see themselves grow through adversity. Further, it offers understanding about the resources school leaders may depend on to manage through a traumatic event connected to their school. Participants offered recommendations for districts about how they might support school leaders during and after a traumatic event. They also provided recommendations for school leaders who lead through a traumatic event. Findings from this study may assist districts, unions, schools of educational leadership, and those who provide professional development to consider how crisis management, trauma-informed and posttraumatic growth awareness information, and burnout mitigation skills may build capacity in school leaders who are likely to experience a crisis or traumatic event at some point during their administrative career.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».