Effective School Literacy Culture and Learning Outcomes: The Multifaceted Leadership Role of the Principal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the multifaceted leadership role an effective principal assumed in the deployment of evidence-based literacy practices in her school. We conducted a mixed methods case study integrating the lived experiences of 11 school staff (principal, learning support teacher, and classroom teachers) with the reading scores of 122 Grade 1 to 3 students in Alberta (Canada). A merged mixed analysis strategy revealed four interdependent influences pointing to key contributions of the principal in igniting awareness, developing expertise, creating momentum, and leveraging data in relation to literacy school practices. Our findings shed light on the complexity inherent in the roles of principals and their interactions with others in developing evidence-based literacy school cultures that improve students’ performance. Keywords: leadership, mixed methods, principal, reading. L'objectif de cette étude était d'explorer le rôle de leadeurship à multiples facettes qu'une directrice d'école efficace a assumé dans le déploiement de pratiques de littératie fondées sur des données probantes dans son école. Nous avons mené une étude de cas à méthodes mixtes intégrant les expériences vécues de 11 membres du personnel de l'école (directrice, enseignant de soutien à l'apprentissage et enseignants) et les résultats en lecture de 122 élèves de la première à la troisième année de l'Alberta (Canada). Une stratégie d'analyse mixte fusionnée a révélé quatre influences interdépendantes soulignant les contributions clés de la directrice d'école à la sensibilisation, au développement de l'expertise, à la création d'une dynamique et à l'exploitation des données en relation avec les pratiques scolaires en matière d'alphabétisation. Nos résultats mettent en lumière la complexité inhérente aux rôles des directions d'école et à leurs interactions avec d'autres personnes dans le développement de cultures scolaires fondées sur des données probantes qui améliorent le rendement des élèves. Mots clés : leadeurship, méthodes mixtes, direction d'école, lecture.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".