Promising Practices for Leadership Development: Exploring a Collaborative Professional Learning and Coaching Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the substantial impact school leaders have on school improvement, the imperative for continuous professional learning for leaders is evident. In this two-year action research study, researchers collaborated with a school division, forming a research-practice partnership, to design and explore a collaborative professional learning and coaching program. The primary objective of this program was to align with local leadership standards and foster leadership development. The central research question was: How does implementation of a collaborative professional learning and coaching program contribute to leadership development? Data were collected from district and school leaders and included pre and post surveys, interviews, and focus groups. The findings of this study indicate that district leadership practices show promising potential in fostering inservice opportunities for leadership development. These practices include the following: (a) ensure programs are sustained with a consistent focus, (b) utilize collaborative learning approaches, (c) assess growth through reflection and feedback, and (d) use action research to support continual improvement. This study aims to provide valuable insights to school districts and researchers regarding the implementation of sustained and job-embedded professional development for school leaders, with a specific focus on leadership development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".