Motivating teachers’ commitment to change through distributed leadership in Chinese urban primary schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Understanding the relationship between distributed leadership and teachers commitment to change in the Chinese urban primary school context was the purpose of this study. Design/methodology/approach Quantitative research method is used in this study. For ensuring comprehensiveness, this research employed a random sampling method. This study took place in Chinese urban primary schools. A total of 350 questionnaires were circulated, 318 questionnaires were returned, and 291 questionnaires were valid, with a response rate of 90.9 per cent and a validity rate of 91.5 per cent. Findings The results of path analysis indicated that various dimensions of distributed leadership, including collaboration and cooperation, responsibility and accountability, and values and beliefs, had significant effects on group competence. Collaboration and cooperation and decision making had significant relationships with task analysis. Collaboration and cooperation, responsibility and accountability, and values and beliefs had significant effects on collective teacher efficacy as a single variable. Originality/value These findings contribute to the understanding of educational management in the Chinese context and advance knowledge about distributed leadership theories in an East Asian context.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".