How transformational leadership in educational organizations in Jamaica affects twenty-first century teachers’ performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper explores how leadership in educational administration affects teachers’ motivation and performance. The transformational leadership model theoretical framework as postulated by Bass has guided this presentation (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994). Educational leaders and their leadership styles contribute to the motivation of educators and learners’ fulfillment of their mandate to educational institutions. Ten participants (administrators and educators), with at least three years of working experience at the post-secondary level, were engaged in this study to explore human experiences and stories. Clandinin (2007) said narrative inquiry “involves the reconstruction of a person’s experience in relationship both to the other and to a social milieu” (p. 5). With this approach, the author sought to collect data from responses to semi-structured interview questions on how leadership in educational administration affects teachers’ performance. N-vivo 10 software was used to analyze the data. The result adds to the body of knowledge regarding how leaders at the post-secondary level leadership styles and motivation can transform educational organizations in Jamaica and help form Ministry of Education policies that regulate and encourage best practices for educational change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".