Pass the Crayons: Leadership, Art Production, and Communities of Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of an arts-based leadership (Kelehear, 2006, 2008) practice at a rural middle school in South Carolina are examined. The school principal and art teacher led a day-long staff development and followed up individually to assist teachers to create art as metaphor for individual growth plans as well as school improvement plans. Specifically, the arts-based initiative sought to invite professional conversations that focused on: 1) personal reflections, 2) multiple perspectives, and 3) art making. Findings suggest that when the art teacher and principal work in collaboration, there is real value in an arts-based leadership practice. Also, when led by the art teacher, teacher reflections suggested that as the principal worked alongside the teachers, they felt valued and supported and viewed the principal as authentic and trusting. Additionally, out of the engendered trust, the teachers were emboldened to consider innovative, arts-based approaches to their teaching. Finally, there was evidence that the art teacher was highly effective in introducing innovative leadership practices as teachers. This study is one of several implementation studies emerging from earlier research on arts-based leadership.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".