MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738412921

Influence of Cognitive CoachingSM on the Development of Self-efficacy and Competency of Principals

2017· article· en· W2738412921 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Todd Rogers, Cal P. Hauserman, Jacqueline Skytt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-efficacyPrincipal (computer security)CognitionMedical educationPsychologyProfessional developmentApplied psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of Cognitive CoachingSM on the development of self-efficacy and competency was examined as part of the program evaluation of the Leader2Leader (L2L) Pilot Program for beginning principals in Alberta, Canada. Fifteen qualified principals (coaches) and 23 new principals completed the L2L Pilot Program that took place over 18 months. Self-efficacy and the acquisition of seven principal practice competencies weremeasured at baseline and the end of the program. The findings present a stronger case for increasing levels of professional competency than they do for increasing self-efficacy. A series of recommendations made and endorsed by the coaches and new principals for improving the process of Cognitive CoachingSM are provided

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducationSame topicCoaching Methods and ImpactFrench-language works237,207