Understanding the Development of Relational Trust Through Pedagogical Leadership in an Elementary School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this practical action research study was to determine how relational trust was developed through pedagogical leadership in an elementary school. The study was set in a Kindergarten to Grade 4 school with approximately 700 students, in the context of a large urban school district in the province of Alberta. The study included 10 participants in Cycle 1 and seven participants in Cycle 2. Participants were self-selected leaders, formal and informal, participating in leadership learning sessions throughout the year. Data were gathered through both cycles which included documents, participant researcher field notes, survey responses, and planning agendas, and summaries from the leadership learning sessions. The following research question framed this research study: How is relational trust developed through pedagogical leadership in an elementary school? This research study, anchored in social-ecological theory, describes and documents how one principal established relational trust through a pedagogical leadership approach. The findings from Cycle 1 guided the development of the participant researcher’s action plan in Cycle 2, which lead to further findings and learnings. Five findings emerged from this study: a) committing to knowing the staff personally and professionally by prioritizing time to engage in diverse forms of communication including ongoing cycles of feedback; b) ensuring staff voices are heard through multiple key actions including decision-making processes and protocols; c) honouring learning through dedicating time for professional learning, setting goals, and ensuring all decision-making is guided by what it best for student learning; d) honouring transparency by creating a visible principal practice in matters related to accountability, expectations, and decision-making; and e) creating a leadership learning model that is open to all teachers to participate in a self-discovery process of who they are as leaders. Two key conclusions from the research are: to build relational trust, principals need to design a leadership learning model, with a pedagogical leadership approach in mind, in which all teachers are welcome to participate; and relational trust was developed during the professional learning sessions, and led to risk-taking and innovation.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".