Learning environment and education leadership: A comparative study that includes British Columbia, Canada and Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research sheds light on the similarities as well as the differences between the administrative as well as leadership styles in British Columbia (B.C.) and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (K.S.A). This study was conducted with a total of eight participants (four from British Columbia and four from Saudi Arabia respectively). A narrative inquiry approach was utilized in this research, through which the participants’ lived experiences and their impact on the learning environment were examined. Through the stories shared by the participating school leaders from both jurisdictions in the conversational interviews, a candid and clear picture of educational leadership in relation to their lived experience was provided. It was through careful analysis of the administrators’ narrative account with respect to their experiences that the researcher recognized the narrative trends in which the administrators’ build their stories. This approach revealed the cultural landscapes within the educational leadership in relation to their lived experience in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and British Columbia respectively. This study found that BC school leaders viewed their job as having to do with every aspect of the school administration and leadership with a ‘wide spectrum’ of tasks, while the principals in Saudi Arabia saw their major responsibility as ‘general supervision’. It was also revealed through this research that in spite of their cultural differences, school leaders in these two countries viewed unnecessary bureaucratic hierarchies as a common barrier toward the smooth running of schools within the two cultures. Generally, it was found that irrespective of the well-established cultural and geographical differences between Saudi Arabia and British Columbia, educational leaders in these two countries do share some similarities in their leadership approach and styles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".