A logic of “linking learning”: Leadership practices across schools, subject departments and classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers the roles of school leaders, a departmental-level leader and a teacher in implementing a reform within a school, and the nature of the relations between the groups and individuals that attended this process. Drawing upon Bourdieu’s “thinking tools”, the article analyses the nature of the leadership practices surrounding the implementation of a single-sex mathematics class from the perspective of key participants in the change process: two school-level leaders, one departmental chair, and the teacher charged with teaching the class. By considering a secondary school and one of its constituent departments as a field and sub-field, respectively, we argue that even as there is evidence of contestation over the nature of the practices that influence or potentially influence the leadership practices at play within the field and sub-field as a whole, there are also significant learnings in relation to student learning on the part of those involved which serve as “links” between the leadership practices at the school and department levels, and the leadership of learning of the teacher implementing the reform. In this way, a logic of “linking learning”, guided by an ethic of concern for students’ success, was evident across school, department and classroom.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.104 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".