ERIC ED520371: Making Schools Work Better
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper synthesizes four research projects the authors completed between 2006-2011. The first research study was a case study of leadership in five highly-effective elementary schools in Alberta. Second, we thoroughly reviewed literature in the area of "Student Engagement." Our third research project included 50+ interviews compiling ten years of success stories from the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI). The final research project was longitudinal study asking high school students at risk of not completing high school why they had disengaged with learning and how they would change schools. This paper attempts to reflect upon our collective research. We have synthesized our work into seven key findings, twenty-one specific positive actions, and three actions that suggest principals should not do. Key findings include: (1) engaging students; (2) encouraging specific teacher actions; (3) building good relationships; (4) building spaces for learning; (5) focusing on "how" learning takes place, not on what is learned; (6) involving parents; and (7) practicing shared leadership. As authors, we hope these reflections help inform efficacious school leadership.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.696 | 0.059 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".