Bibliographic record
Abstract
The third wave of school reform in Quebec that started in 2000, emphasized developing student leadership. For a school to become successful, it became mandatory for the administration to build leadership-capacity and developing teacher-leadership in curriculum and professional-development and school governance. \nBuilding leadership-capacity and sustaining school improvement are the focus of this thesis. It describes the basic actions that schools should take to build leadership-capacity and investigates the characteristics of a capacity-building head and the ultimate effect of building leadership-capacity on student development. It also suggests that leadership-capacity is context specific and differentiated among schools. Leadership-capacity is defined as ‘broad-based skilful participation in the work of leadership’ (Lambert 1998:5) and a way of understanding sustainable school improvement (Lambert 2006:239) given each school culture and context. \nFollowing a review of literature, five key-research questions were formulated, addressed through three interpretive case-studies carried out in three private secondary schools in Montreal, Quebec. The research tried to investigate the process of building leadership-capacity and how it sustains school improvement. The study predominantly used a flexible multiple case-study design, using qualitative methods of data collection. In each school, semi-structured interviews, non-participant observations and document checking were conducted, providing method and data triangulation. \nGiven that this research involves multiple case-studies, data analysis was conducted in two stages: within-case and cross-case analysis (Yin 1994:112). Analysis revealed that building leadership-capacity usually starts by broadly and skilfully involving teachers in leadership activities. Sustainable improvement can be supported by transforming the school into a professional-learning-community where learning and improvement become a habit of mind, daily practiced by teachers and students. Knowing that the ultimate goal of school improvement is to enhance student learning and achievement, this can be achieved when schools develop students to become leaders of their own learning journey. Developing teacher-leadership in a school ultimately reflects on student leadership and learning. In addition to these internal leadership-capacity processes, each school has its unique contextual factors, consequently, capacity-building is “multifaceted” (Fullan 2006), based on developing strategies that are unique to each school given its context, internal leadership-capacity predispositions and culture that ensure sustainable improvement for each particular school. The suggested leadership-capacity model provides a visual display for building leadership-capacity based on the dynamic interaction between internal capacity, culture and external context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".