Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the experience of leadership coaching of secondary school principals. Twelve secondary principals who worked in Ontario along with five coaches who worked with secondary principals in Ontario schools were interviewed to solicit their ideas. The study was based on the main research question: How does leadership coaching as a professional development strategy support secondary principals? This was followed by three sub-questions: (1) How do secondary school principals describe their experience with leadership coaching? (2) How do coaches describe their experience with leadership coaching? (3) In the coaching process, to what extent do secondary principals and coaches believe that a change has occurred with secondary principalâ s leadership practices and beliefs? Most participants reported having a positive experience with coaching although some were hesitant with working with a coach initially. It was found that newer principals felt that coaching was more beneficially to support their work than more seasoned principals did as newer principals felt that the support of the coach helped with the steep learning curve. Some of the seasoned principals felt they were well-versed and confident in their work already. As well, a positive coaching relationship and a positive coachee disposition were key factors to ensure coaching success. It was found that coaching supported principals navigating through the challenges especially with resistive staff. It also helped with alleviating the loneliness of the job as it carried with it a social element for the principal. Changes to principal practices and beliefs were noted by most participants with a few participants indicated that no change resulted from the use of a coach. The study concludes with the notion that coaching is a good form of professional support for novice or seasoned principals should there be interest and quality coaching.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".