Conference Agenda

Global concern over youth mental health has intensified educational attention to student well-being, often articulated through universal international policy frameworks such as those by World Health Organisation (2021), and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2021). However, global policies often recontextualised when they are travelled (Robertson & Dale, 2015). Crucially, school leaders play key roles in the enactment of these policies by mediating and interpreting them within their institutional and sociocultural contexts (Agron et al., 2010; Lingard et al., 2007; Powell & Graham, 2017). As a result, leadership practices for student well-being are not a simple matter of implementation, but a situated framework shaped by leaders’ biographies, values, and resources within institutional and policy environments (Lingard & Christie, 2003; Thomson, 2016). This prompts the fundamental questions about how leadership disposition is formed and consequently impacts practices across different education systems. Within this sociological lens, this study will investigate leadership for well-being not as a technical judgement, but a socially and culturally situated form of practice shaped through leaders’ biographies and broader societal conditions.

The study is a cross-cultural comparative study that explores how school leaders in Hong Kong and Finland interpret and enact student well-being in the two distinct educational fields. Though both places engage with global discourse on youth mental health, they do so through divergent moral orders, specific governance logics, and cultural traditions. Finland’s education system is embedded within a Nordic welfare orientation that foregrounds collective care and institutional trust (Sahlberg et al., 2021); whereas Hong Kong’s system is shaped by Confucian moral values, postcolonial legacies, and meritocratic governance (Hue, 2008; Tam et al., 2021; Tan, 2024). These contrasting sociocultural backdrops offer an analytically rich basis for examining how leadership dispositions toward well-being are formed and enacted under different structural conditions.

This study is grounded within Bourdieu’s theory of practice (Bourdieu, 1990), adopting the concepts of habitus, capital, and field as relational and generative tools for analysing leadership dispositions. For this study, leadership habitus is conceptualised as a system of embodied, historically sedimented dispositions through which leaders interpret their responsibilities and act within institutional constraints (Lingard & Christie, 2003). Rather than treating leadership practices as consciously selected behaviours, this framework attends to how dispositions are shaped socio-culturally within the two educational fields and enacted through leadership practices. Grounding the study in the relational and reflexive interpretations of Bourdieu (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; King, 2000), the study will also treat habitus as adaptive and negotiated, which will unfold how leaders respond reflexively to challenges or tensions between personal values, policy demands, institutional expectations and the resources they have.

The inquiry is carried out through a biographical narrative inquiry within a constructivist-relational epistemology, through which to gain access to the articulated leadership dispositions that are formed over time (Chase, 2005; Riessman, 2008). It captures how leaders make sense and narrate their roles and practices in well-being policy. Reflexivity is integral to the research design, acknowledging my own positionality across insider and outsider roles (Fetterman, 2008), and treating knowledge production through this study as an ethically and interpretively accountable process (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

In sum, this research questions for this study are as followed:

1. How do school leaders in Hong Kong and Finland articulate their embodied leadership values and dispositions related to student well-being?

2. In what ways are these leadership dispositions shaped by the interplay of their biographical trajectories, various forms of capital, and sociopolitical-institutional contexts?

3. How do leadership dispositions and capital shape the ways school leaders engage with and enact student well-being in practice across the two contexts?

Global conditions are significant factors that impact the vision, mission, goals, objectives, and daily decisions of individuals, societies, institutions, and nations in attaining the set target. For instance, the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted all sectors of economies and individuals, without exception, of schools and industries (Hashim et al., 2024; Irby et al., 2023). The global pandemic necessitated a significant shift in conventional leadership practices and other human engagement to virtual platforms (Cox & Mullen, 2022; Hashim et al., 2024; Irby et al., 2023; Yoshizawa, 2025). Notwithstanding, the gradual patronage of modern leaders in using virtual platforms for other purposes, it was not until the emergence of the pandemic that school leaders significantly transformed to virtual sites, hence contributing to the substantial acceptance of virtual leadership coaching (VLC) in schools (Hashim et al., 2024; Irby et al., 2023; Yurkofsky, 2021). VLC is an innovative approach to deepening learning, reinforcing skills and capabilities, and supporting current leaders to transition and undertake their tasks with clarity, dignity and accountability through virtual platforms (Cox & Mullen, 2022; Hashim et al., 2024; Irby et al., 2023; Yoshizawa, 2025). This led to the heightening integration of technologies in educational leadership, and it continues to shape how professional learning and instructional support are conveyed in diverse settings. This approach therefore reflects the relevance of emerging VLC described in this research as the progressive, structured and technology-mediated coaching furnished by modern schools to leaders and educators with the specific purpose of enhancing instructional practice and learners' learning outcomes. This definition suggests that the present landscape of leadership development is unrestricted by location, such as the USA, Europe or Sub-Saharan African countries, conference rooms, and schedules, furnishing flexibility and adaptability in leadership practices (Cox & Mullen, 2022; Hashim et al., 2024; Irby et al., 2023; Yoshizawa, 2025). Notwithstanding the significant challenge associated with the contemporary virtual learning landscape, which is inaccessibility, exploring the depth of this novel system of leadership practices to improve information delivery and dissemination is relevant ( Kenneth Leithwood, 1995).

The main purpose of this qualitative research is to investigate school leaders' lived experiences of VLC and explore how VLC impacts self-awareness, leadership expansion, and their professional conduct. This research is anchored on three significant research questions: (1) How do school leaders engaged in the school enhancement (SE) project recount their experiences of participating in the VLC? (2) What factors of VLC do school leaders discern as most influential in their growth as leaders? (3) How do school leaders explain the shift in their leadership perspectives, behaviors, and identity anchored on the virtual coaching?

This research is grounded in instructional leadership theory (ILT), transformational leadership theory (TLT), and adult learning theory (ALT) (Munna, 2021; Schunk, 2012; Stone-Johnson et al., 2023; Taylor & Hamdy, 2013).

ILT suggests that strong and effective school leaders exhibit direct influence on their students' learning outcomes by redirecting learning and teaching via professional enhancement, feedback and vision-setting (K. Leithwood et al., 2019; Munna, 2021). TLT furnishes a conceptual idea of comprehending leadership growth as a systematic process encompassing heightened relational influence, self-awareness, and value alignment. ALT portrays leaders as adult learners who essentially benefit from professional learning that is relevant, collaborative, self-directed, and problem-solving oriented (Mukhalalati & Taylor, 2019; Taylor & Hamdy, 2013).

Through the evaluation of the VLC, this research provides insight into the after-pandemic educational realities, through the increasing trajectory in hybrid and remote leadership practices. The present research supports bridging the critical gap in educational leadership studies through an empirical analysis of how leadership practices offered via virtual platforms corroborate instructional enhancements and student academic success.

Today, when high-stakes accountability pressures are emanating from all angles, including governments, state institutions, parents, and other stakeholders, there has been enormous pressure on schools and school districts, especially to up their instructional leadership role effectively and efficiently. This situation highlights the critical role of the school leader in the school ecosystem (Day et al., 2023; Leithwood et al., 2004). To improve instructional quality and monitor the activities and practice school-level leadership, studies (e.g., Kachur et al., 2013; 2010) have revealed the importance of leadership walk-throughs, especially at the elementary school level. Walk-throughs are traditionally associated with school-level leadership teams moving into classrooms to observe teaching and learning; there is growing recognition that they can also serve as a tool for the school leadership team. Although not popular in most districts, according to Alexander et al. (2025), results from a leadership walk-through can provide valuable insights to help the school leadership team reflect on their leadership practices and critically identify ways they could support the attainment of educational outcomes.

As school-level leaders engage in a myriad of activities, including setting direction and guiding their school towards achieving school goals. Leaders ensure good organizational health by creating and shaping the culture and environment of their schools to support academic work (Tomlinson, 2004). Amid performing all these functions, the question that beckons investigation is: who observes the activities of school leaders to ascertain the extent to which their leadership practices will lead to effective school enhancement? In the elementary school setting, a leadership walk-through provides an opportunity to observe the school's activities, including both instructional and non-instructional activities led by the school leadership team. Getting a clear picture of such activities is the basis for leadership walk-throughs. Leadership walk-throughs, usually conducted by an external body or individual, involve a brief but focused observation of the full range of activities of the school leadership team on a typical school day. Leadership walk-throughs help in ascertaining the activities of the school leadership team and determine how school activities can contribute to school improvement and student learning. Leadership walk-throughs, therefore, challenge the long-held assumption that school improvement efforts should focus solely on instruction rather than leadership practices (Leithwood et al., 2019; Sun & Leithwood, 2015). This is because leadership actions, inactions, interactions, and decisions a fundamental to overall school improvement (Yeigh et al., 2019; Bird et al., 2013). The purpose of this proposed study is to examine how leadership walk-throughs can be used to develop elementary school leadership practices. The study is guided by the following research questions:

RQ1: What observable leadership behaviors and practices does the school leadership team show

or enact in their school setting?

RQ2: How do school leadership teams implement instructional, relational, and managerial

practices in their school setting?

The study is conceptually grounded in Management-by-Wandering-Around (MBWA), a leadership approach with roots in Management studies (Kachur et al., 2010; Peters, 1985). Rather than serving as the formal theory for the study, the MBWA is used as a conceptual basis for understanding leadership walk-through as a strategy through which school-level leadership teams can be observed in their natural day setting, undertaking their leadership roles (Alexander et al., 2025; Tucker & Singer, 2015). This study views walkthroughs as structured, non-instrumental, and non-interruptive observations of school leadership teams. Using multiple rounds of brief, informal, and non-evaluative observation by researchers, the study will capture authentic leadership practices, school culture, and daily instructional activities in an elementary school environment.

Aim: 1) to investigate conceptual models for professional development in scientific literature, and 2) to evaluate and select a conceptual model which could help understand school principals’ professional development.

In a rapidly changing world, the need for professional development (PD) applies to all professions, across all industries and areas of work. Education and educational leadership at school level are no exceptions. PD implies that something (what?) in the professional individual changes (how?) over time. But first, why is PD of school principals important?

Why? Reports show a global crisis in the recruitment of school principals (OECD, 2020). Research also show how a possibility of indulging in PD activities strengthens retention and raises job-satisfaction for school principals. (Barber et al., 2010; Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Pollock & Hauseman, 2016). Understanding PD for school principals might therefore be part of a solution for educational and societal challenges.

A literature review on school principals’ PD shows:

• an imbalance in research among PD for school staff, researchers are to a higher degree interested in PD for teachers than school principals. A Google Scholar search on “professional development for principals” provides only 45% of a similar search on “professional development for teachers”.
• that most focus among researchers is put on school principals entering principalship, less on PD for experienced and even less on late-career principals. (Lazenby et al., 2022).
• that primarily formal PD learning opportunities occupy researchers, while informal and nonformal are of less interest. (Veelen et al., 2017).
• only a few in-depth studies globally in which school principals are given space to reflect on their own PD. (Parylo, 2012).
• that theoretical frameworks and models for school principals’ PD are scarce. (Assor & Oplatka, 2003; Kremer-Hayon & Fessler, 1992; Weindling, 2000).
• that predominant paradigms on educational leadership at school level are mostly silent regarding school principals’ PD.

What? Literature offers a range of conceptual models for understanding professional competence. No model is specifically developed for school principals. Based on a separate analysis, a suitable model would be the holistic approach suggested by Cheetham and Chivers (1998). It is suitable because of 1) the versatile discernment of knowledge and skills, 2) the acknowledgment of meta-competencies and 3) the recognition of context and work environment (where).

How? Research lacks a generally accepted definition of PD, however, it is often described as a process which is complex, interactive, formal, informal, manageable, and measurable. (Desimone et al., 2002). PD furthermore features “individual, social, and occupational dimensions in a collaborative, inquisitive, and self-directed learning environment” (Sancar et al., 2021, p. 4). From a social constructivist perspective, PD is discussed in terms of “lifelong learning”, implying accumulation of skills and professional knowledge, as well as change of value and growth of personal qualities. (Mushayikwa & Lubben, 2009).

The form for PD varies, it takes place not only as formal activities like programs, courses, seminars and conferences but also in informal and nonformal settings. Pennings, Bottenheft, Van de Boer-Visschedjik and Stubbé (2019) state that informal learning is “the most important way to acquire and develop the skills and competencies required for work” (ibid., p. 1). Hess and Kelly (2007) report that 96% of school principals considered informal learning more important for the job than formal in-service training. Professional networks represent another example of this type of informal learning environment and they sometimes include PD activities which are “self-initiated, self-directed and self-managed” (Lazenby et al., 2022, p. 542). Nonformal PD includes for instance self-study processes.

The purpose of this paper is to find a theoretical framework which would help understand how school principals develop professionally.