Praxis and pedagogy : teachers' conceptions of social justice in a context of school improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers' Conceptions of Social Justice describes this framework as "... a powerful combination of three key conceptsschool improvement, democratic community, and social justice" (p.66).The research presented in this thesis identifies with Murphy's key concepts as it explores the relationship between teachers' conceptions of social justice and the establishment and sustainability of school improvement proglams aimed at helping students fulfiIItheir educational potential.It is hoped that the interpretations and examples provided by this research will contribute to existing knowledge regarding possible future directions for educational leadership and school administration which are rooted in Murphy's concepts of school improvement, democratic community and social justice.Gronn (2002) points out that the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)confirmed in 2000 that it was committed to ensuring that educational leaders worked effectively in multiple leadership or distributed leadership teams.He indicates that the CCSSO found that while distributed leadership was present in the discourse of the school leadership profession, there was "...a paucity of discussion of the idea within the scholarly community" û).653).Gronn found limited analyses of the concept of distributed leadership in the education literature, even though "...distribution of the responsibility for leadership is viewed as one of the key factors in successful school reform and institutional re-design" (Gronn,p.654).This study provides a profile of distributed leadership within one school, through the examination of teachers' involvement in the design and implementation of school improvement initiatives.The nature of leadership revealed through analysis of this case study may add to existing knowledge regarding the significance of distributed leadership in the success and sustainability of school reforms.
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 | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".