Being There: University Faculty, School Administrators, and Teachers Engaged in School Improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University faculty members, district and school administrators, and teams of teachers from seven rural schools worked together for 18 months, seeking to accomplish clearly identified school improvement goals using a collaborative inquiry approach. Five of seven school teams demonstrated increases in collaborative behavior that, in turn, enhanced their ability to accomplish their goals. Four schools showed improvements in student achievement on external exams that were identified as measures related to their goals. Two schools showed minimal improvement on any measures. Lack of improvement was mostly related to changes in team membership, changes in leadership, unresolved conflict, or an inability to sustain focus on a goal. Improvement in student learning was observed and documented in writing and reading skills, numeracy, assignment completion, and classroom behavior. The most apparent aspects of teacher growth were pronounced increases in professional reading, enhanced knowledge of curriculum, improved assessment practices, and shared leadership. However, involvement in the project failed to encourage a majority of teachers to share aspects of their teaching practice with their colleagues. Principals of successful projects were seen to be effective in sharing responsibility, managing conflict, communicating clearly, and ensuring task completion. Less effective principals were seen as more controlling. less willing to delegaie, and not skilful in managing conflict.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".