A Study of the Principals' and Teachers' Perceptions of the Effects of Collegial Approach to Implementing School Self-evaluation in Selected Hong Kong Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Starting in September 1997, the Hong Kong Education Commission has adopted School Self-Evaluation as part of the framework of Quality Assurance Mechanism for promoting quality education culture in schools. Under a project initiated by the Chinese University of Hong Kong, some primary and secondary schools started to implement school self-evaluation in their school. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of this self-evaluation framework based on principals’ and teachers’ perception of these participating schools. The relationships among school self-evaluation, school cultural changes, teacher co-operative learning culture and principal leadership are also explored. Furthermore, this study examines whether other factors, such as school type, teacher gender, teacher ranking position, teachers’ year-of-teaching-career and Chinese cultural values, will affect the implementation of self-evaluation in schools. A mixed approach of methodology was adopted for this research work. The findings indicated that school self-evaluation can initiate teacher co-operative learning culture, which in turn effects cultural changes in these schools. Also, the above named components play specific roles in the school self-evaluation implementation – school cultural change process: teacher co-operative learning culture acts as mediator, school self-evaluation as moderator and principal leadership as change facilitator.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".