The Emergence of Formalized Educational Leadership in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, educational leadership is a term often used to describe specific types of academic and scholarly work in universities, colleges, CEGEPs, other post-secondary institutions (and in K-12 contexts, where the term’s usage is entirely distinct). Our interest is in how educational leadership is framed in the specific context of Canadian universities. While most universities recognize exemplary teachers through promotional criteria and often through awards, the academic literature provides little guidance on what exactly constitutes educational leadership in university settings. To trace the emergence of educational leadership as a formalized construct, we gathered data from Collective Agreements and other public-facing resources such as awards criteria from 48 Canadian universities to examine ways in which educational leadership was defined and/or enacted. Our national review identified several categories of activities commonly cited as examples of educational leadership, including significant forms of curricular development, formal leadership initiatives, the dissemination of public forms of teaching-related research or teaching-based resources, engagement in the scholarship of teaching and learning, and the carrying out of various forms of mentorship. Our review also found that educational leadership is constituted not only by these types of activities, but also by the capacity to demonstrate impact of these activities beyond the classroom. In addition to examples of ways to illustrate impact, we offer a working definition of educational leadership that reflects how it is emerging within the specific context of contemporary Canadian universities.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".