The Relationship of Servant Leadership in the Classroom and Student Perceptions of University Quality of Instruction
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examined students' perceptions of certain servant leader behaviors exhibited by faculty and the associated perception of effective university instruction. Five servant leadership dimensions were considered: altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship. Students in the United States who were in undergraduate or graduate programs or had completed a program within the last month were invited to complete the survey instrument based on the Servant Leadership Questionnaire developed by Barbuto and Wheeler [1] and the University of Winnipeg’s Quality of University Instruction Questionnaire (UW-QUIQ) developed by Clark [4]. We used a structural equation model and found there was a positive relationship with professors exhibiting servant leadership dimensions and quality of instruction. Business professors in this study exhibited lower servant-leadership attributes in some areas and lower levels of effective university instruction than their counterparts, mandating the need for change. We suggest that these results provide insight into improving business school instruction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it