MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093332467 · doi:10.1108/jocm-07-2013-0125

Principal preparation in Kenya, South Africa, and Canada

2014· article· en· W2093332467 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Organizational Change Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKenyaOriginalityPrincipal (computer security)Educational leadershipInstructional leadershipValue (mathematics)Leadership developmentPedagogyPolitical scienceSociologyPublic relationsPsychologyQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The International Study of Principal Preparation (ISPP) informs principal preparation in relation to change in schools. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach – The three-stage ISPP study utilized a mixed-methodological approach. Data were gathered in Kenya, South Africa, and Alberta, Canada utilizing a survey instrument that contained items that focussed on: problematic leadership responsibilities, prior leadership development experiences, and perceived adequacy of leadership preparation experiences. Findings – Leadership preparation in Kenya and South Africa was relatively unstructured, compared to structured university-based leadership preparation in Alberta. The assumption in Kenya and South Africa was that classroom teaching was adequate preparation, while Alberta respondents perceived teaching and leadership as discrete knowledge sets. Content of preparation experiences in Kenya and South Africa was mainly about teaching and learning, while in Alberta it was more about instructional leadership. Kenyan principals felt prepared for the principalship. Alberta principals stated that they were ill prepared to deal with day-to-day responsibilities. Senior South African principals felt they were not prepared for school improvement while younger principals felt they were adequately prepared. Practical implications – Findings suggest that providers utilize cross-cultural partnerships that incorporate technology-mediated dialogue and action research. Cross-cultural learning should be considered co-learning. Preparation should include partnerships between western institutions and informal groups of principals in settings such as Kenya and South Africa. The study informs policymakers, researchers, and school leaders. Originality/value – The cross-cultural comparisons in this paper inform understandings of the principalship in relation to organizational change in schools.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.229 · 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