Conference Agenda

As a response to ever-changing societal changes and the challenges it leads to for leadership and learning in schools, the leadership of school development has emerged as one of the key areas within school leadership research (Kovačević & Hallinger, 2019). Simultaneously the professional development of school leaders has aroused the extensive attention of researchers, politicians, and practitioners. Professional development activities range from formal training programs to informal interactions at the workplace (Goldring, Preston, & Huff, 2012). The symposium focuses on formal school leadership training programs (SLTPs) provided by higher education institutions that aim to contribute to school leaders’ professional development and promote school development.

Researchers state that successful SLTPs are embedded in authentic school environments to allow participants to apply what they have learned (Goldring et al., 2012; Simkins, 2012) and strengthen learning on the individual and organisational levels (Aas, 2016). Likewise, Zhang and Brundrett (2010) state that SLTPs can only prepare and develop influential leaders with support from the school context. Additionally, Huber (2011) suggests that professional development to be successful should be centred around experiential knowledge/practices and combine cognitive theoretical ways of learning, cooperative and communicative process-oriented procedures, and reflexive methods. Cognitive theoretical learning includes, among others, lectures and self-study, cooperative and communicative process-oriented procedures including, for instance, group and project work, and reflexive methods containing methods such as feedback and supervision. However, even though the success and effectiveness of SLTPs have received theoretical and empirical support, some researchers point out that most empirical findings about SLTPs are limited to the subjective outcome at the individual level (see, e.g. Jensen, 2016). Thus, the topic of how SLTP can contribute to professional learning and promote school development remains unclear.

In this symposium, we are a group of researchers through the project Research on national school leadership training programs, examining the issues associated with this topic. Specifically, we examine the key characteristics of SLTPs that contribute to professional development and benefit school development and how teams consisting of researchers and educators can facilitate and enhance learning activities that support learning for individuals participating in the programs and their organisations. We examine these research questions in a review study based on data from 44 peer-reviewed articles from nine countries (which cover the three-country perspectives to be represented in a symposium) and three studies using an action research approach and data from national SLTPs for school leaders in Norway. The action research is theoretically informed by Wells’ (1999) approach to knowledge building. In this approach, learning is not a separate form of activity but an inherent aspect of engaging with others in purposeful actions that have significance beyond themselves for all the participants. It involves an ongoing transformation of the learner/participant and, as such, typically occurs not on a single occasion but incrementally over time.

The issues addressed in this symposium lie at the very heart of the content domain of the Educational Leadership Network (NW26). Numerous educational leadership studies have shown that the primary subject of this symposium, SLTPs and professional leadership development, has important implications in school leadership, which is a central focus of NW26. This symposium includes an international review and three empirical papers on the effectiveness of SLTPs. As boundary conditions aligning learning components in the SLTPs and experiential knowledge/practices of those participating in the programs are seen as critical for developing and theorising in school leadership studies, this symposium should contribute to the NW 26 via theoretical and empirical reporting on these contingent components. Finally, a discussant from Sweden will discuss how the papers advance and further the symposium's topic with interest for a European/international research audience that might stimulate discussions and benefit future research.

This paper reports from a review of empirical research on school leadership training programs (SLTPs) offered by universities. The review aims to summarise international literature to contribute a better understanding and provide an overview of what is currently known about SLTP, which aims to contribute to professional development and benefit school development. The review raises the following research question: What characterises school leadership programs that promote the leadership of school development? The review can be described as a Rapid Review (Khangura et al., 2012) designed to create reviews in line with specific procedures. A rapid review has limitations. However, the format has nevertheless been developed so that the same requirements for systematics and transparency apply to any systematic review. A systematic review is characterised by using techniques to minimise bias and by following criteria for searching for relevant studies (Cohen et al., 2011). Hence, the following selection criteria for inclusion of studies were determined: 1) SLTPs offered by universities; 2) published between 2010 and 2020; 3) published in 15 selected peer-reviewed journals 4) published in English or a Scandinavian language. The process of selecting articles for review was based on quality criteria according to which the studies were assessed. As a result, 44 studies from nine different countries were included for review. As a basis for synthesis, the articles were categorised and prepared for a configurative synthesis (Gough et al., 2017). Configuration was about bringing the findings from the studies together so that they could show us potential connections and develop new knowledge. In the review, the 44 included articles are treated as data. This means that in addition to the findings, the studies' context and background have also been relevant to the synthesis work (Gough et al., 2017). Since the synthesis work is data-driven, the configurative synthesis is consequently developed "bottom-up" (Sandelowski et al., 2012). Based on the review, the present paper provides an overview of components that characterise SLTPs that promote the leadership of school development. The identified components are referred to as condition components, learning components, and content components. These components will be presented and discussed in the symposium. In addition, the review offers features of SLTP that might interest researchers and the development of programs that benefit school leaders' professional development and their organisations.

Gough, D., Oliver, S. & Thomas, J. (Red.). (2017). An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. Sage Publications. Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J. & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews,10(1), 1-10. Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., Leeman, J. & Crandell, J. L. (2012). Mapping the mixed methods–mixed research terrain. Journal of mixed methods research, 6(4), 317-331.

Internationally lectures have traditionally been the dominant form of teaching in universities and colleges (Huber, 2011), characterised by students' limited opportunity for active participation (Pettersen, 2005). To strengthen the quality of higher education in Norway, national guidelines have been given, among other things, stating that studies must include learning activities where students become active participants in their learning. The core of student active learning is student activity and involvement in the learning processes; in short, it is about methods where students are activated in meaningful learning activities and think about what they are doing. In many educational programs, integrated use of lectures and more student-active approaches to learning are used (Amundsen & Haakstad, 2018). For example, teachers combine lectures with group work, reflection tasks, and the like. Such combinations of learning approaches align with researchers who propose the use of a range of learning activities in various formats for obtaining an effect of development for school leaders participating in formal school leadership training program and their organisations (see, e.g. Huber, 2011; 2013; Goldring et al., 2012; Forde & Gronn, 2013 & Simkins 2012). This paper reports from a study investigating how group discussions can contribute to students' learning in the extension of lectures to gain a comprehensive insight into and further develop teaching practices with lectures in combination with group discussions as an asset for students learning. The study is carried out with an action research design (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). The context of the study is a National School Leadership program (15 credits) offered by a Norwegian university. The data is based on observation logs of a teaching session and the students' reflection notes conducted at the session's end. The findings indicate that group discussions in the extension of lectures provide learning opportunities that promote the students' learning, both collectively and individually. Through the group discussions, learning opportunities emerge in the interaction between theoretical knowledge addressed in the lecture and practical, experience-based knowledge based on the students' self-perceived "pegs" and ideas from their organisational contexts. In this interaction, learning experiences are produced that give the students increased understanding and new perspectives about how they can drive development in their practice contexts and how they, as school leaders, can act in new ways. However, the findings reveal how both organisational and structuring conditions and conditions related to qualities in task design and the conversations themselves can inhibit learning potential.

Amundsen, G. Y. & Haakstad, J. (2018). Teaching in higher education – consistency and change in context and role. Journal of the European Higher Education Area, 2, 83–98. Carr, W. and S. Kemmis (1986). Becoming critical: education, knowledge, and action research. Falmer Press. Forde, McMahon, & Gronn (2013). Designing individualised leadership development programmes. School Leadership & Management, 33(5), 440–456. Goldring, E., Preston, C., & Huff, J. (2012). Conceptualizing and evaluating professional development for school leaders. Planning and Changing, 43(3/4), 223–242. Huber, S. (2011). The impact of professional development: A theoretical model for empirical research, evaluation, planning and conducting training and development programmes. Professional Development in Education, 37(5), 837–853. Huber, S. (2013). Multiple learning approaches in the professional development of school leaders – theoretical perspectives and empirical findings on self-assessment and feedback. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(4), 527–540. Pettersen, R. (2005). Kvalitetslæring i høgere utdanning. Innføring i problem- og praksisbasert didaktikk. Universitetsforlaget.

Ever since the start of the national school leadership programs in 2009 in Norway, there has been an expectation from the Directorate of Education that the programs should involve school owners in their students' education (Hybertsen et al., 2014). However, evaluation reports from the national school leadership programs show that the principal's leaders, the school director at the municipality named school owner, are not included in the student's work. Most students experience the school owner as not very supportive, and the providers find it demanding to involve them (Caspersen, Aamodt, Stensaker, & Federici, 2018). Effective school research emphasizes the importance of school owners and principals working systemically with leadership learning and curriculum (Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2020) and school owner support (Aas & Paulsen, 2019). In addition, research shows that school leadership programs must respond to the schools' societal-, personal- and system challenges (Dempster, Lovett, & Fluckiger, 2011). As the student's leader, the school owner plays a central role in these practical challenges. In many countries, coaching is part of national school leadership programs (Lumby, Crow, & Pashiardis, 2008; Robertson & Earl, 2014). Nevertheless, involving the student and their school owner in coaching is yet to be tried in Norway. This paper reports from a study of coaching integrated into the National Principal Training Programs in Norway (15 credits). The coaching is linked to the student's tasks: they shall develop and lead school development work related to the curriculum in their organization. The students' work is anchored in one of the school owner's focus areas. The research question is: How can the school owners' participation in a digital guidance meeting in a national school leadership program contribute to learning for students and school owners? The study has been carried out in an action research design involving collaboration between the researchers and the practitioners (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Stenshorne & Ballangrud, 2014). The three supervisors from the university conducted the coaching interviews with 26 students and their leaders, and they answered anonymous questionnaires. Using Wells' categories of meaning as analyzing tools (Wells, 1999), we find that the students developed their leadership role and practice, professionality, understanding of the societal challenges, and collaboration, with implications for the knowledge of the school owners. In addition, the conversation can contribute to learning and development. A prerequisite is that the meeting is well prepared.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: education, knowledge, and action research. Falmer Press. Dempster, N., Lovett, S., & Fluckiger, B. (2011). Content and strategies to develop school leadership: A select literature review. The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5-22. Lumby, J., Crow, G., & Pashiardis, P. (2008). International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of School Leaders. Taylor and Francis. Robertson, J., & Earl, L. M. (2014). Leadership learning: Aspiring principals developing the dispositions that count. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 29(2), 3-17. Stenshorne, E., & Ballangrud, B. B. (2014). Ledelsens muligheter og utfordringer i skolen som demokratisk organisasjon. In J. Madsen & H. Biseth (Eds.), Må vi snakke om demokrati? Om demokratisk praksis i skolen (pp. S. 101-117). Universitetsforlaget. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry. Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge University Press. Aas, M., & Paulsen, J. M. (2019). National strategy for supporting school principal's instructional leadership. A Scandinavian approach. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(5), 540-553.

According to a new review of leadership training programs for school leaders, coaching has become one of the tools used in leadership development programs for school leaders (Aas, Andersen et al. 2021). Studies reporting on the benefits of coaching used for professional development and for developing leadership performance are growing (Bush 2009, Forde, McMahon et al. 2013, Goff, Guthrie et al. 2014). Even though researchers recognize and highlight the necessity and importance of working in and with groups in professional development, few group-coaching models have been developed, and there is little research in the field (Aas, 2016; Aas, 2020). In studies of group coaching, there seems to be agreement on several effects, including understanding and self-regulation for acceptable group behaviour, better listening and communication skills, clarification of strengths and values and improved understanding of the organisation as a whole (Brown & Grant, 2010). In many countries, coaching is part of national school leadership programs (Lumby, Crow et al., 2008; Robertson & Earl, 2014). This paper reports from a study of group coaching integrated into the National Principal Training Programme in Norway, which aims to promote reflections on the personal agency (role clarity and self-efficacy) that can lead to changes in leadership performance (Aas & Fluckiger, 2016). We set out to investigate the group coaching protocol, which starts with a coaching question that is reformulated during the group coaching session (Flückiger, Aas et al. 2017) and ends in a leadership action the leaders will try out after the coaching session. The research question is: What happens when are school leaders participating in group coaching in a leadership training program try out new leadership actions after the coaching session? Inspired by action research (Carr & Kemmis, 1986), we followed 84 students and 16 group coaches from two different universities in 2021 and 2022. First, in analyzing the students' planned leadership actions, the findings show that developing leadership skills to improve relationships and collaboration with teachers was the main challenge. Next, the findings indicate that group coaching contributes to the professional development of the school leaders who participated and that the learning was further developed by testing concrete leadership actions in their school context. Finally, the study demonstrates how action research where university teachers explore aspects of their teaching, in this case, group coaching, can contribute to the further development of leadership programs for school leaders.

Goff, P. et al. (2014). Changing principals’ leadership through feedback and coaching. Journal of Educational Administration 52(5), 682-704. Lumby, J., et al. (2008). International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of School Leaders. New York, Taylor and Francis. Robertson, J. and L. M. Earl (2014). Leadership learning: Aspiring principals developing the dispositions that count. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice 29(2), 3-17. Aas, M. (2016). Bli en bedre skoleleder. Gruppecoaching som verktøy. Universitetsforlaget. Aas, M. (2020). Ledercoachning och gruppecoachning som verktyg i ledares profesionella utveckling. Perspektiv på handledning. In U. Leo and E. Amundsdotter. Malmö, Gleerups Utbildning AB: 143-163. Aas, M., et al. (2021). Forskning på den nasjonale skolelederutdanningen. Delrapport 1, Oslo Metropolitan University. Aas, M. and B. Fluckiger (2016). The role of a group coach in the professional learning of school leaders. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice 9(1), 38-52.