A Comparison of Educational Leadership in Islamic and Western Countries and a Suggestion of a Model for a Global Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
or a global society to function well its members need certain attitudes, such as a desire for cooperation, mutual understanding and respect, as well as continuous and self-motivated learning. A model of education is needed that engenders these attitudes such that students critically understand these attitudes instead of passively accept them. This kind of education requires leadership that agrees with, and engages in, the same attitudes. This dissertation proposes a model of educational leadership for a global society, and presents an exploration and comparison of public high schools across three countries: Canada, Turkey, and Iran. The proposed model consists of three interrelated dimensions: leadership style (transformational leadership and high leadership delegation), organizational structure (highly ranked Learning Organization structure that is more horizontal than vertical), and approach to learning (an active learning approach that utilizes critical pedagogy). The schools were explored in terms of: their current practices and policies in the three dimensions, how well they ranked in those dimensions relative to the proposed model, and what obstacles exist for implementing the proposed model. A case study methodology was used in which 15 participants (5 per country) at different organizational levels (students, teachers, and principals) were interviewed to gather their opinions. The interview questions were organized by the three dimensions and followed the INVEST framework for Learning Organizations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".