MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385189598 · doi:10.22230/ijepl.2023v19n1a1327

Middle Leading Practices of Facilitation, Mentoring, and Coaching for Teacher Development: A Focus on Intent and Relationality

2023· article· en· W4385189598 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Education Policy and Leadership · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsCoachingFacilitationMiddle managementSociologyPedagogyThematic analysisHumanitiesPolitical scienceLibrary sciencePsychologyPublic relationsQualitative researchArtSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While educational institutions are increasingly acknowledging the importance of middle leaders for improving teaching, there is little research on middle leaders’ specific leading practices compared with, for example, principals. Evidence delineating and describing specific middle leading practice is scant. Drawing on practice theory, this article presents preliminary results from the first phase of a four-year Australian project examining the “flow of influence” of middle leading practices on teacher development. Thematic analysis of interviews reveals the multidimensionality of middle leading, and specifically, ways in which the practices of facilitating, mentoring, and coaching are nuanced and distinctive in their arrangement, intent, and relationality. Results have important implications that cannot be ignored by school leaders and policymakers seeking to improve broader systemic support for building and refining middle leading practices. RésuméBien que les établissements d’enseignement reconnaissent de plus en plus l’importance des cadres intermédiaires pour l’amélioration de l’enseignement, il existe peu de recherches sur le leadership de ces cadres relatives, par exemple, à celui des directeurs d’école. Les descriptions et analyses des pratiques spécifiques aux cadres intermédiaires sont rares. Cet article s’inspire de la théorie d’entraînement pour présenter les résultats préliminaires de la première étape d’un projet australien s’échelonnant sur quatre ans qui examine les « flux d’influence » des cadres intermédiaires sur le développement de l’enseignement. Une analyse thématique d’entretiens révèle le caractère multidimensionnel de la direction intermédiaire et, plus particulièrement, les manières dont la facilitation, le mentorat et l’accompagnement, en ce qui a trait à leur structure, leurs intentions et leur relationnalité, sont nuancés et distincts. Les résultats de cette recherche ont des implications importantes que ne peuvent pas ignorer les dirigeants et responsables des écoles qui cherchent à offrir un meilleur appui systémique pour améliorer et peaufiner les pratiques propres aux cadres intermédiaires. Keywords / Mots clés : coaching, facilitating, mentoring, middle leadership, practice architectures / accompagnement professionnel, facilitation, mentorat, cadres intermédiaires, architectures des activités

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.300
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it