UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP PRACTICE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the role of leadership practice in the implementation of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). To do this, the study which was conducted in one elementary school in Western Canada utilized a theoretical framework that views leadership as a collaborative process linked with practice rather than a trait, behavior, or competencies that can be evaluated or rated. As a result, the leadership-as-practice (LAP) theory, which presents leadership as a social and material process served as the theoretical framework for this study. The study was conducted using a case study approach that was informed by a pragmatic orientation. The study’s participants, who included parents, teachers, and students associated with the ESD program in Western Canada, were chosen using purposive sampling. Relevant research data were collected through observations, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis. Insights and greater understanding of the concept and role of leadership in the implementation of ESD were produced through manual data analysis. This study was premised on the growing need to question the presumptions that traditional leadership theories are built upon. Findings from the study revealed the possibility that collective leadership may be a wise and effective form of leadership for implementing ESD in schools. The study’s findings also demonstrate that in order to achieve sustainable development, it is necessary for multiple agents to collaborate and use their creativity to enact ESD. As a result, if we are to acknowledge the value of collective leadership in schools, its development would require a different learning approach that empowers students to lead for sustainability. Conclusively, the study’s findings show that leadership for ESD requires a deep absorption into the practices that are ingrained in sociomaterial relations.
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 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".