MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1591012144 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v21i2.278

A Coterminous Collaborative Learning Model: Interconnectivity of Leadership and Learning

2012· article· en· W1591012144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ilana Margolin

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningGeneral partnershipProfessional learning communityPedagogyTransformative learningCollaborative learningContext (archaeology)Service-learningProfessional developmentSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative ethnographic study examines a collaborative leadership model focused on learning and socially just practices within a change context of a wide educational partnership. The study analyzes a range of perspectives of novice teachers, mentor teachers, teacher educators and district superintendents on leadership and learning. The findings reveal the emergence of a coalition of leaders crossing borders at all levels of the educational system: local school level, district level and teacher education level who were involved in coterminous collaborative learning. Four categories of learning were identified as critical to leading a change in the educational system: learning in professional communities, learning from practice, learning through theory and research and learning from and with leaders. The implications of the study for policy makers as well as for practitioners are to adopt a holistic approach to the educational environment and plan a collaborative learning continuum from initial pre-service programs through professional development learning at all levels.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.038
Scholarly communication0.0120.020
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock Education JournalSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207