Distributed Leadership as a Factor in and Outcome of Teacher Action Learning, 12(4)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports an evaluation of Quality Teaching Action Learning (QTAL) projects conducted at New South Wales (NSW), Australia public (state) primary and secondary schools and explores how distributed leadership facilitated and was an outcome of the QTAL projects.The evaluation encompassed all 50 projects at 82 NSW public schools, and nine of these schools were selected and visited for case study by members of the evaluation team. Data were provided through individual project progress reports, journals, interviews and case studies. Schools used funding provided under the Australian Government Quality Teaching Program to release teams of teachers to undertake approved Quality Teaching Action Learning Projects using the NSW model of pedagogy as a framework. Projects were broadly successful in achieving their aims and distributed leadership and teacher learning were important factors in project planning, implementation, and success. Projects resulted in enhanced distributed leadership and leadership capacity in the schools and provided a foundation for further professional learning and change. Conditions facilitating and hindering action learning, distributed leadership, and educational change are highlighted. Copyright 2008 by the INTERNATIONAL ELECTRONIC JOURNAL FOR LEADERSHIP IN LEARNING.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".