TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES: AN EXPLORATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I dedicate this work to those teachers and leaders who reflect, evaluate, and consider. May we commit to asking the hard questions and getting to the heart of the matter: student learning. This study is an exploration of leadership practices that develop and sustain a professional learning community (PLC). More specifically, it explores teacher perceptions of these leadership practices in the context of a school district in Alberta, Canada. The study employed qualitative research in the form of interviews of sixteen teachers from one school district. Findings include description of teacher perceptions of leadership practices as they relate to shared and supportive leadership, shared values and vision, collective learning, supportive conditions, and shared personal practice. It is necessary to recognize the interrelated nature of structural supports along with cultural underpinnings to fully develop and sustain PLCs. Moreover, the findings highlight the influence of structures in supporting dimensions of collective learning and shared personal practice. The need for careful consideration of the power of school culture over the effective use of any structure
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".