Leadership for school improvement – linking learning to leading over time

ABSTRACT

Furnishing novice school leaders with the knowledge and skills they require to be successful in practice has proved difficult. This paper describes and analyses an attempt to link learning and school leading practices in their education: a three-year learning activity within the Swedish National School Leadership Training Programme intended to develop novice school leaders’ ability to analyse, critically examine, formulate and implement school improvement strategies. The theoretical point of departure is a social constructionist and situated perspective on learning. Drawing on data from 120 reports submitted by school leaders at the end of years two (n = 60) and three (n = 60) of the programme, and nine audio-recorded conversations between groups of the leaders, we identify critical aspects of the learning process. The findings indicate that the novice school leaders initially perceived the learning activity to be challenging, but it gradually became a mediational mean and boundary object in and between their practices. Critical elements for this were the activity’s design and length, systematic approach, supportive tools and ‘forcing moments’. We argue that linking training practice to school leading practice may have positive effects on novice school leaders’ professional development.

KEYWORDS:

• School leadership
• school leader training
• situated learning
• boundary object
• improvement work
• leading practice

Introduction

International and national studies have shown that school leadership is a major factor in schools’ and students’ results (Robinson et al. 2008, OECD 2013, Jarl et al. 2017, Leithwood et al. 2020), and thus also in school improvement (Fullan 2015). These findings have increased interest in identifying effective educational measures to prepare novice school leaders to lead improvement of their schools (Møller and Schratz 2008, Huber 2010, Møller 2016). However, previous studies have shown that it is difficult to design learning activities that promote effective changes in school leading practices (Ärlestig 2012, Edqvist 2014, Aas 2017). Moreover, training generally lacks sufficient contextual relevance and integration with local leading practice (Cosner et al. 2018). Harris et al. (2016) conclude that policy borrowing between different educational systems is a reason for this. Leadership training has also been criticised for primarily focusing on general areas of knowledge that are weakly linked to students’ learning and results. Understanding of instructional leadership and ways to lead improvement work has proved to be particularly important for strengthening students’ learning, but generally receives less attention in international school leader education (Cunningham and Sherman 2008). Several researchers (e.g. Grogan and Andrews 2002, Sappington et al. 2010, Fluckiger et al. 2014) argue that school leaders require targeted training to translate the knowledge and skills they receive in education into actions in their schools. In connection to this, Crawford and Cowie (2012) stress that school leader training must integrate theory and practice and encourage students to interpret experiences through reflection based on practice and reading. Thus, learning activities that link learning in training practice with actions in school leading practice are crucial. As noted by Fluckiger et al. (2014):

… no matter what mode of learning is engaged, each must be drawn into a reciprocal relationship with practice to be effective (p. 563).

Bush (2012) as well as Korach and Cosner (2017) have also noted that ways to improve school leaders’ development, particularly learning activities during their education, require substantially more research attention. Nevertheless, several studies have shown that learning activities grounded in problem-based learning and action research can promote school leaders’ double-loop learning and actions based on new knowledge in their leading practice (Sappington et al. 2010, Wood and Govender 2013, Aas et al. 2019). Other recommended learning activities that may contribute to school leaders’ learning and actions include group coaching, case study analysis and mentoring (Aas and Vavik 2015, Daresh 2004, Bush 2012, Ärlestig 2012). In Sweden, participants in the National School Leadership Training Programme reportedly feel that they have deepened their knowledge, but to a lesser extent applied their new knowledge in their school leading practice (Skolverket 2014). Crawford and Earley (2011) came to similar conclusions when they studied the National Professional Qualification for Headship programme. Their results show that many of the participants experienced the programme to be confidence building but less related to long-term outcomes. Thus, there is a clear need to develop learning activities in school leader education that link learning in training to school leading practice, and vice versa. In this paper, we present and analyse results of a three-year learning activity designed to meet these requirements.

Aim and research questions

The aim of this study is to contribute to knowledge about school leader education by analysing a three-year learning activity included in the Swedish National School Leadership Training Programme. Two specific research questions are addressed:

• How has the learning activity contributed to the school leaders’ ability to formulate and implement strategies for school improvement based on critical examination and analysis of their schools and leading practice?

• How does the learning activity function as a mediational mean and boundary object in and between the training practice and the school leading practice?

Theoretical framework

The two main elements of the study’s theoretical framework are a situated view of learning (Wenger 1998) and social constructionist view of knowledge (Shotter 1993a, 1993b, Gergen 1999, 2001). Rather than a traditional perspective that regards learning as a generalisation of knowledge or transfer between different situations, learning is here regarded as participative and joint engagement in social practices through which knowledge is appropriated and mediated with use of various artefacts. Moreover, school leaders are regarded as participants in two practices: the training practice in the School Leadership Training Programme and the school leading practice in their schools. The participation in and movement between these practices demands ‘boundary work’ (Berner 2010, Akkerman and Bakker 2011), in which acts and artefacts serve as mediational means (Wertsch 1991, 1998) and boundary objects (Wenger 1998, Star 2010). Both the learning activity as a whole and moments within it are regarded as mediational means and boundary objects in school leaders’ two practices.

Wertsch (1991, 1998) uses the concept mediational means to describe cultural tools that mediate knowledge and affect our actions as they are mastered in diverse social practices. In this mastering, tools are used before the user fully understands how they work, but meaning and understanding are made for the tools and the contexts through their use, thereby mediating knowledge. In this study we analyse how moments in the learning activity can mediate knowledge and contribute to school leaders’ appropriation and mastering of tools for improvement work in both their training and school leading practices.

A review of previous analyses of boundary objects as mediational means found that learning at boundaries is often described as a form of coordination (Akkerman and Bakker 2011). Similarly, Star (, 2010) regards arrangements that can help groups to work together through flexibility and shared structures as boundary objects: ‘the stuff of action’ (p. 603) that provide bridges between different practices. Akkerman and Bakker (2011) also describe boundary objects as artefacts that express meaning related to multiple perspectives. Boundary objects have different meanings in different social contexts, but have a structure that is sufficiently recognised to be understood and used in different contexts. In this manner, they become a kind of means for translation between different situations and contexts. Boundary objects are often designed to transfer part of a communication or social action between practices. However, they can never fully replace communication and collaborative work, partly because of the contextual variation in their meaning, and partly because ultimately they are merely tools that assist mastery of related practices.

Wenger (1998) also uses the concept boundary objects, describing them as artefacts that form relations between communities of practices. According to Wenger it is in the actual use of an artefact that the relations form, and an important element of designing a boundary object (implicitly or explicitly acknowledged) for a certain purpose is designing its participation in practices and connections between them. Wenger uses the concept ‘brokering’, instead of transfer, when referring to the process of moving between and bringing knowledge about participation in different practices. Brokering is a complex activity that requires the ability to ‘manage carefully the coexistence of membership and non-membership, yielding enough distance to bring a different perspective, but also enough legitimacy to be listened to’ (Wenger 1998, p. 110). In boundary encounters, the participants produce mutual meaning through the understanding of different practices. In this way, the various practices and participation in them are constituted and developed. This occurs in a kind of practice-based connection where the activity of connecting two practices forms an additional ‘boundary practice’. For school leaders who participate in the school leader training programme, the ability to bring together knowledge generated in their training and school leading practices is important. In order for the learning activity to contribute to their knowledge, they also need to create a mutual understanding of the learning activity with others, brokering in the boundary practice or encounter between their training and school leadership practices. If they can do this (which we investigate here), there are additional requirements for creating knowledge that can enrich their school leading practice.

The case

The national school leadership training programme

In Sweden, training for school leaders has a long history, and since the 1970 s it has been organised at national level. It has also been heavily revised several times following major changes in the school sector. Overall, however, it has been consistently intended to improve school leaders’ understanding of national steering documents and their responsibilities as school leaders, and furnish them with the knowledge, skills and tools required to improve school practice. Initially, the education focused on the formulation of school improvement strategies, but it has been gradually expanded to encompass skills such as problem-solving, conversation strategies and emotional engagement. The overall aim is to help participants to create learning organisations that improve students’ results (Ekholm 2015, Norberg 2018). Following increasing demands for more performance management and accountability in Swedish schools (Uljens et al. 2013), the National School Leadership Training Programme was revised in 2008. Critics claimed that it had not been preparing participants sufficiently for their important assignments. A parliamentary decree stated that the programme’s objectives would include ensuring that participants received ‘qualifications for taking the responsibility for children’s and students’ equal, judicial, and secure education; create prerequisites for goal achievement at individual and school levels; and take responsibility for the development of the schools as a whole’ (Norberg 2018, p. 7).

The revised programme introduced in 2008 is given by higher education institutions to secure a scientific approach. The programme is mandatory for all newly appointed leaders of compulsory schools, upper secondary schools and adult education facilities. From 2019 the programme is also mandatory for pre-school leaders. School leaders participate in the programme in parallel with their work for up to 20% of working hours. The programme lasts three years, includes 36 training days and provides 30 credits at the advanced level. The programme has three courses: ‘School Legislation and the Exercise of Public Authority’, ‘Management by Goals and Objectives’ and ‘School leadership’. Supervision is also included in the programme. In accordance with the decree mentioned above, the programme is intended to develop school leaders’ ability to critically examine their school and leading practice, and use the results to formulate effective improvement strategies. The decree also states that the education in the programme should be linked to the participants’ leading practice and provide conditions for developing it (Skolverket 2015). The programme is provided by Swedish universities commissioned by the National Agency of Education.

The study was conducted at one of the universities providing the training programme, where a learning activity has been designed that extends over its three years (see Figure 1). In this activity, participating school leaders (with support during the training days) formulate and implement an improvement initiative in their respective schools. The initiative is a form of action research (Rönnerman and Salo 2012, 2014), based on the leaders’ respective schools and issues associated with their practices. During the first year, the participants systematically map an identified improvement area in their schools. Based on the results, actions are implemented during the second year, which are followed up, analysed and critically examined with support from literature and personal experiences. In the third year, actions based on conclusions drawn in the second year are implemented. As part of the learning activity, the school leaders individually document the process in three reports, describing their analysis, improvement strategy and examination of the results of the improvement effort. Each report forms the basis for examination in the course during which the improvement work has been conducted.

Figure 1. Summary of the learning activity during the three-year educational programme.

In addition to the implementation of improvement work and writing reports, the learning activity includes: lectures on matters relevant to the improvement work, literature seminars, workshops and seminars with collegial coaching and oral presentations of completed improvement work for colleagues, invited superintendents and educators. Table 1 presents the scope of these moments.

Table 1. Moments in the learning activity.

Moments in the learning activity	Frequency during the programme
Improvement work in schools	Continually over three years
Documentation of improvement work	3 reports, one each year
Lectures on improvement work	8 occasions during the programme
Literature seminars	24 occasions during the programme
Workshops	9 occasions during the programme
Seminars with collegial coaching	2 occasions during the programme
Oral presentation	1 occasion during the programme

Method

The study focused on a training group of 60 school leaders who participated in the National School Leadership Training Programme between January 2016 and December 2018. Of those leaders, 23, 26 and 11 worked in pre-schools, compulsory schools and high schools, respectively, 13 were male and 47 female, and 40 of the schools were publicly owned while the other 20 had private owners.

The method applied involves the use of empirical data including reports submitted by each of the school leaders as part of their examined course work after years two (n = 60) and three (n = 60) of the programme. In addition, conversations between groups of 4–8 school leaders organised as a final step in the learning activity were also used in the analysis. In the group conversations, the school leaders were asked to jointly reflect on whether, and if so how, the various moments of the learning activity contributed to achievement of the programme’s objectives. In total, there were nine group conversations with 58 school leaders (two were missing), each lasting 20–30 minutes, without the presence of educators. All group conversations were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Analysis

In a first analytical step, the reports were read and analysed in relation to the first research question: How has the learning activity contributed to the school leaders’ ability to formulate and implement strategies for school improvement based on critical examination and analysis of their schools and leading practice? Three more specific questions were formulated and addressed using the empirical material in the next step: what is the level of analytical foundations of the school leaders’ choices of improvement strategies? What are the key characteristics of strategies they formulated and implemented? What are the key characteristics of their critical examinations of results of their strategy and their practices? With inspiration from Hall and Hord (2015) categorisation of strategies for successful school improvement and the importance of evaluating initiated strategies, criteria for assessing the phenomena referred to in each analytical question were created at three levels (Level 1–3) before further investigation of the reports (see Table 2).

Table 2. Analytical questions and criteria for categorisation at three levels.

Analytical question	Categorisation at three levels
What are the analytical foundations of the school leaders’ choices of improvement strategies?	Level 1 – Personal motivation Level 2 – Analysis based on the mapping report Level 3 – Analysis based on the mapping report and additional data from the school
What are the key characteristics of strategies they formulated and implemented?	Level 1 – Single events Level 2 – Several events that together constitute an improvement strategy Level 3 – Several events that together constitute an improvement strategy connected to local policy
What are the key characteristics of their critical examinations of results of their strategy and their practices?	Level 1 – Examination of results Level 2 – Examination of results and consequences for school practice Level 3 – Examination of results, consequences for school practice and problematisation of the selected strategy and leaders’ own actions

The transcripts of the group conversations were analysed in relation to the second research question: How does the learning activity function as a mediational mean and boundary object in and between the training practice and the school leading practice? The conversations are here considered as social practices where meaning was constructed in joint action, between participants rather than within them (Shotter 1993a, Gergen and Gergen 2004) Hence, the analysis focused on how and what mutual meaning the leaders constructed, in the conversations, about how the learning activity had contributed to development of their ability to conduct rationally based improvement efforts in their schools. Initially, we grouped meanings associated with each of the learning moments, listed in Table 1, that collectively constituted the learning activity. In the next step, themes were identified within the leaders’ expressions concerning important elements of their learning and professional development. Finally, each theme was analysed in relation to the school leaders’ expressed perceptions of how the learning activity functioned as a mediational mean/cultural tool and boundary object in and between the two practices. In their mutual meaning-making regarding the themes, school leaders often used various metaphors in descriptions, explanations and negotiations. Metaphoric explanations are commonly used to clarify meanings in human conversations (Lakoff and Johnson 1980), and here they provided helpful illumination of the meanings the school leaders jointly expressed and constructed in their group conversations for guiding further analysis.

Results

This section initially presents an overall summary of the results of the analysis of the reports from years 2 and 3 (see Table 3), then an analysis of the group conversations, based on the identified themes.

Table 3. Numbers of school leaders whose reports showed they had developed skills the learning activity was intended to foster (for meanings of levels, see Table 2).

Analytical foundations of choices of improvement strategies	Year 2 (N = 60)	Year 3 (N = 60)
Level 1	7	10
Level 2	42	14
Level 3	11	36
Strategies they formulated and implemented
Level 1	27	14
Level 2	21	21
Level 3	12	25
Critical examination of results of their strategy and their practices
Level 1	19	5
Level 2	22	7
Level 3	19	48

Reports

The analysis of the reports showed how many school leaders demonstrated skills that the learning activity is intended to develop, based on the three-level criteria listed in Table 2. As shown in Table 3, we detected clear progression from year 2 to year 3 within each of the areas examined. A relatively large number of school leaders showed level 1 skills related to choice of strategy for improvement work after year 3, but this is partly because some moved to a new school during the programme. In order to follow the progression of the learning activity, these school leaders, who had limited knowledge of their new school, limited their improvement strategies to acquire knowledge and plan future improvement strategies. After year 3, a large proportion of the leaders demonstrated level 3 skills in critically reviewing their results and practice, probably because during this period participants read relevant content in the School leadership course, and their own leadership role and its consequences for the school’s practice were problematised in most activities. In conclusion, the results show that the programme’s objectives had been met, and school leaders’ proficiency had been increased (but to varying levels) by the end of year three.

Group conversations

Overall results of the analysis of the group conversations show that school leaders regarded the learning activity as an important opportunity to develop their ability to conduct scientifically based improvement work in their schools. Five themes were identified based on school leaders’ expressions concerning important elements for their learning and professional development. The analysis focused particularly on indications of how the learning activity functioned as a mediational mean and boundary object within these themes.

The learning activity as a journey

The first theme that emerged from the conversations regards how the school leaders tried to understand the learning activity and how it became a tool that guided efforts in their training practice. They said that, especially at the beginning of the programme, they had difficulties in understanding the learning activity and uncertainty about interpreting the task correctly. They often described the learning activity as a journey where it was about not coming to a standstill, finding the right path and not being on the wrong track. They also expressed initial uncertainty, in terms of having no idea where they would end up, but said that in the end they landed right, i.e. at a new destination, ready for new challenges. In one group, a school leader summed this as follows, with reference to the oral presentations of the improvement work they had given and heard the day before:

SL 1: I want to add that yesterday’s presentations, they show that we have landed and that we have actually developed our ability to critically examine our own schools and our own practice. There was the evidence, yesterday in all the presentations we went to.

(Group conversation 6)

In the workshops with collegial guidance, the school leaders said they initially missed guidance from the educators, and had a feeling of the blind being led by the blind. However, as they became increasingly experienced, they greatly benefited from the workshops, and guidance from both the educator who conducted them, and each other as colleagues. Two participants in one of the group conversations said:

SL 1: This is what I thought at the beginning, that because you were so uncertain, you really needed more support then. Because you want to do the right thing as well. But then it’s really important that everyone takes responsibility to contribute to it, of course. Then I think we have the competence to support each other.

SL 2: Of course.

SL 1: And when you get a problem, you go and ask specifically about that. If we now use resources in a smart way. But just this to take responsibility. To really read each other’s paper and really contribute, it is really, really important because otherwise you will be suffering as well.

(Group conversation 2)

This and other conversations clearly show that the school leaders’ knowledge of the learning activity was mediated through engagement in it and associated social situations. In this manner, the learning activity, with its various moments such as the workshop with collegial guidance, provided cultural tools for learning about and in improvement work. The school leaders also clearly indicated that talking about each other’s improvement work created mutual memories that contributed to a broader perspective of their own work.

An intriguing element of the school leaders’ perceptions of the learning activity concerned documentation of their improvement work. They argued that the template for ‘The reports’ outline and formalities’ were far too directorial and they had wanted a different form for the reports. However, they also said that the clarity of the template helped them structure the documentation. An aspect that created uncertainty was that the template stated that reports should be written in a form close to the form used for such material in routine school practice but at the same time have a scientific form. The leaders regarded this as a duality in the requirements for the reports, particularly those who had previously written academic essays. In the group conversations, the school leaders tried to create mutual meaning about and in this duality.

The learning activity as imperative

The learning activity was treated in the group conversations as an activity that sometimes beneficially forced the school leaders to do things in both practices. For example, one school leader said that the obligation to complete it enabled creation of links between the training practice and school leading practice.

SL 3: You have somehow been forced to apply it in your school, what we have actually read. So, it has not only been theory, it has also become practice in the school.

SL 4: Yes, I really agree. It has been interconnected.

(Group conversation 2)

The school leaders indicated that being forced to map an identified improvement area rigorously and systematically during the first year gave them tools to use for future mapping in their schools. The compulsion to carry out the mapping for such a long time was raised in the conversations as beneficial for understanding the structure of the improvement work as a whole and get into it from the beginning. Time was also an aspect that the school leaders raised in relation to coercion in the learning activity. They considered that being forced to engage with the improvement work for three years contributed to their learning.

SL 1: It is not certain that we would have done it otherwise, because you can be so easily drowned in all the practical work and documentation. But now we have been forced to take that time, and I think that even if it is not perfect, we have learned to do it.

(Group conversation 9)

The school leaders also perceived an element of coercion in writing the reports, which they sometimes described as a necessary evil, but also regarded writing reports, or other documents, for examination as requirements or obligations in advanced university courses. At the same time, all groups emphasised the importance of writing based on their own learning and development of their leadership. In a group conversation, the school leaders reasoned like this:

SL 1: Yes, the need to do it does cause anxiety, but once you have done it you are quite satisfied. Because you have also expanded your writing ability and learned something. These thoughts that spin in the head also become concrete when writing them down. So, in that way it is good. Nevertheless, I think it [writing the report] helps to complete the entire programme in some way.

SL 2: I very much think it is expressing in words what we have really done. I think this has been advantageous in my leadership. And when a report has been approved, or even when I have handed it in, I have grown a little each time.

(Group conversation 1)

This conversation clearly shows how writing the reports functioned as a mediational means for sorting, arranging and articulating knowledge linguistically, but also as a boundary object between the training practice and school leading practice, thereby contributing to continued learning. They also regarded the oral presentations (on the penultimate training day) as a beneficial obligation and mediational means for learning, primarily through being forced to present a great deal of work in, what they initially perceived to be, an unreasonably short time. When the presentations were done, they described the process as very good experience, since the limited time helped them to summarise the three years, focus, delimit and identify the core of what they had actually done.

The learning activity as a process and time

The group conversations also clarify the value of the moments of the learning activity being tied together during the three years, thereby creating holistic content, context and interaction. School leaders described the improvement work as a process and said the learning activity resembled the red thread (a Swedish metaphor referring to a main theme, essence or motif that ties disparate elements together) running through the work. For example, one said:

SL 1: Perhaps this is the main point of the work, that is actually the content of the improvement work that we have done, based on what we have been given (theory and lectures and workshops and so on), that, the content of what we have done is perhaps subordinate to the process we have gone through. Learning how to understand what this means and that reality will look like this in the future. We have been very focused on what we do and the red thread in the actual improvement work. But maybe the red thread is our own journey based on those here.

(Group conversation 7)

By focusing on the process instead of the content, the school leaders improved their own learning in the improvement work. Hence, they talked about the process as a tool to use in their own schools in the future. Furthermore, they clearly indicated that it had been important for them to understand the learning activity as a process, in which they became increasingly proficient, while conducting it. Two of them summarised this as follows:

SL 1: And then I actually think it has been good that it has taken so much time. There are not many credits really for such a long time, but the time has been important, at least for me when you work and must do everything else.

SL: 2 [It is good] That one has been trained to engage in a process. You don’t finish, but you take a step and then you can get going.

SL 3: Yes, you can’t run in advance either. Like you have to stay and understand a little more.

(Group conversation 4)

In this conversation, the school leaders tied together time and process, and emphasised the value of the long-term perspective in the learning activity for their own possibility to learn. Another expressed aspect of time was realisation that improvement work takes a long time, e.g., that they had to land in it and rest in it. Since they had the opportunity to anchor, implement and see the results of their actions, time was also important for their school leading practice. They said that time enabled them to hold out and hold on to (embrace) the improvement work in their schools.

The learning activity as systematic training and use of tools

Another theme that emerged in the analysis of the group conversations concerns the structure of the learning activity and how it contributed to mediating knowledge. Within this theme, the school leaders emphasised the systematic approach or workflow that was embedded in the learning activity and pointed out how they had been trained in this.

SL 1: Sometimes you feel that there is a risk that you have missed the goal … You think you have identified something, but you haven’t really and how can you know?

SL 2: But do you think you can read it? I think that for me it is about practicing by yourself, that is, I have to train myself in it.

(Group conversation 8)

Within this theme, the school leaders also pointed out that they had been both brought along and trained in using different tools that would be useful for them in their school leading practice too, as in the following excerpt:

SL 5: We have indeed got methods and strategies and templates to start from. You have not been left to find them yourself.

SL (multiple): No

SL 4: And been trained to do an analysis. And evaluate it.

SL 1: And constantly get inspiration from how others have done things in these workshop groups and yesterday’s presentations, I think. Even if you know what you yourself have done over the years, you also get other snippets that you can take with you.

SL 3: So, you mean as practice-related tools?

SL 1: Exactly, that’s how I think.

(Group conversation 4)

When the school leaders talked about this, they sometimes asked hypothetical questions about how they might have acted in their schools if the learning activity had been less systematic. They also provided alternative answers to their own questions, for example:

SL 5: So, I am also thinking about the first year when we mapped, if we had not done it, would that action have been done in year two? Or, this that we have just done? If you think about the purpose and so. After all, it is interesting that mapping can crystallise a clear action. Then we have also achieved the objectives, the purpose of it [the programme]. So yes, we might not have done it if we didn’t have such clear mapping.

(Group conversation 2)

The thorough mapping during the first year was raised by the school leaders several times in the group conversations. They regarded the rooting of the improvement work in the needs of their respective schools as a key element, and indicated that the systematic approach contributed to their improvement work becoming more professional and systematic over the three years. The systematic approach in the learning activity also raised critical questions about their own work, as noted in the following excerpt.

SL 1: And this particular job, I think, what problem do I really have? And what is the aim of it? And do I test it, with that way and with the method I’ve chosen? Because there I have also swung several times. What do I really have, what am I doing here now? … [In such matters] the structure helps.

(Group conversation 9)

Other tools that the school leaders addressed in the conversations were the reports they had written. Several described how they used the reports in their school leading practice as tools to assist systematic quality work and foundations for working groups to reflect on. One also said that the reports could be used specifically to promote research-based thinking among the staff. The scientific concepts that they applied during the training days and their utility as tools in their school leading practice were also discussed:

SL 1: Not to mention improving the professional language when using concepts from the literature.

SL 2: Has it created a professional language, do you think?

SL 1: Yes

SL 4: Yes, it has, a clearer one. I think it has always been important, but it has become clearer now

SL 1: Yes, with new concepts that you can link to the theory you have learned.

SL 3: Yes, I agree, it’s really a great description. Now you have got so many. You really look at the concepts as tools so they have become real in some way. Before, perhaps one had heard of some concept, but now one has grasped it better, perhaps even used it.

SL 4: Yes, used them in everyday practice, yes.

(Group conversation 1)

Practice science and scientific practice

On several occasions in the conversations the school leaders described the learning activity functioning as a boundary object between their training practice and school leading practice in terms of ‘practice science’ and ‘scientific practice’. For example, they said that they had put the theories into practice, in that the learning activity had been linked to literature and science, as in this excerpt:

SL 3 It has been a way of practicing science, really with a basis in course literature, so we have done something concrete.

SL 1 It has really become practice of the knowledge in both the mapping and implementation of actions, I think. And I have had support in what I should improve, and the actions I wanted to do. I have been able to get support from the research when I have presented my improvement work. In that, I think I have been strengthened.

(Group conversation 1)

Part of the ‘practice of science’ was in utilisation of the scientific concepts that the school leaders had encountered during the programme in their school leading practice, which they said they had struggled with during the literature seminars, but later used as tools in their schools. Another articulated part of the ‘practice of science’ dealt with delimitation of their improvement work: the choice of problem area in the mapping, the selection and implementation of actions and what to include in the reports. As one school leader remarked:

SL 2: Though it feels like the scientific thing when you go in with a very, very wide funnel and then we get better at narrowing down, narrowing down, narrowing down, and that’s why our actions and ideas also changed over time. And now after that what you have come down to is actually quite narrow and tight, and that is when it gets results. And that’s how research should work, it should come down to the little, little question and just lift it out, so that yes. This format has definitely helped, starting wide and then becoming narrower and narrower and narrower, then something falls out from the bottom, plop.

SL 3: That gives effect.

SL 2: Yes, absolutely.

(Group conversation 3)

Regarding scientific practice, the school leaders pointed out that they had examined their leadership through the literature, which had given them a theoretical anchoring of their work. The literature seminars were described as highly important for getting new perspectives on their practices and improvement work. They also described how literature and research strengthened the scientific foundation of their own work. One of them said that scientific practice has been integrated into one’s self and that their new knowledge was useful in other situations. This is also illustrated by the following excerpt from the conversations:

SL 2: I think that the literature has helped me get better at seeing the school practice and critically reviewing it or analysing it. Because the theories have helped me to make a map of what it is like. Or I can look at it from that perspective or another perspective or, therefore, I can choose from which perspective I would like to add a raster on reality, which is much more complex than the theories are.

(Group conversation 7)

According to several groups, writing about their practice in relation to research and other literature had also contributed to scientific practice, as writing the reports illuminated their own learning for them. Others clearly indicated that writing had been an important tool in the ability to analyse and mediate knowledge.

SL 4: For me, writing the reports has worked as if I have been able to analyse my school and to structure what I do and what it depends on. And I have created knowledge while I have written and understood contexts.

SL 1: Yes, because I think it’s important to put that knowledge into text. Because we have a lot of knowledge, or we carry a lot of knowledge, I think, but just to get it down in text and be able to put it into words, you actually learn things in the writing. I think that has been very clear.

(Group conversation 1)

In summary, our results show that, with support in the learning activity, the school leaders developed their ability to carry out scientific improvement work in training practice and in their school leading practice. Significant elements of the learning activity’s ability to support school leaders in their developmental process included the long-time perspective, ‘forcing moments’, systematic work methods and embedded tools

Discussion

Previous research has shown that school leader education needs to be organised so that school leaders have opportunities to practice the knowledge and skills it fosters in their own leading practice, during the education (Fluckiger et al. 2014, Cosner et al. 2018). This has proved to be essential to enable school leaders to search for new knowledge, theories and models that can strengthen their leading practice after completing the education. Our results show that school leaders developed their ability to plan and conduct scientifically based improvement work through participation in a learning activity that combines training practice and school leading practice. It also contributed to the school leaders reflecting on what they do and why they do it (meta-reflection), which increased their awareness of their own learning. This greater awareness then promoted further learning in training practice and school leading practice.

Previous research has shown that improvement work too often has short time perspectives. Moreover, new improvement processes tend to be introduced before previous processes have been followed up and evaluated (Fullan 2015). The learning activity’s design presented in the present study, extended over three years, proved to be beneficial as the longer timeframe encouraged the participants to stick to the area of improvement that they had identified and, in recurring cycles, try new leadership actions for improvement. It also gave them recurring opportunities for in-depth (double-loop) learning. Thus, our findings indicate the importance of a long-time perspective in school leadership training programmes. Our results also reinforce previous recommendations to include action research in school leaders’ education to promote learning and better prepare school leaders for their assignments (Sappington et al. 2010, Wood and Govender 2013, Aas et al. 2019). However, the results also show that organising this kind of learning activity can be challenging and even provoke resistance. School leader education that integrates training and school leading practice requires school leaders to conduct planned leadership actions, produce documentation and submit it for collegial guidance in the training practice. From previous research, we know that novice school leaders have difficulties fulfiling their complex school leader assignments and in stressed everyday situations tend to prioritise the administrative tasks (Jarl et al. 2017). Setting aside time for instructional leadership and improvement work has proved to be difficult, but essential for learning in school leader education. Programmes that ‘force’ school leaders to prioritise this important aspect of their assignment and simultaneously provide support in their work should strengthen the likelihood of them continuing to prioritise this later. In this respect, it may be noted that in physics a moment is a measure of the tendency of a force to cause a body to rotate or pivot around an axis. Analogously, ‘forcing moments’ in this context could be regarded as elements of a programme that may enable a pivotal change or development in practices.

The study shows that the design of the tools integrated in the learning activity creates conditions that not only foster learning, but also support learning during the activity. The uncertainty and difficulties the school leaders said they initially felt show that through ‘being forced’ to use the integrated tools they mastered them, which facilitated further advances in their learning. The constraint that the school leaders perceived can be interpreted, in this context, as a ‘circumstance’ that challenged them and put them in a zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1978). They felt that the requirement to document the improvement work and leadership actions they had conducted was a particularly demanding constraint. However, our results show that the reports had an important function as boundary objects (Akkerman and Bakker 2011) between their training practice and school leading practice. Written documentation and analysis of ongoing improvement work is often deficient in school practice, in contrast to academic practice, where it is considered a core activity. The learning activity, and in this case design of the reports, bridged this difference between practices and thus contributed to school leaders’ ability to develop their analytical and communicative skills. By writing the reports, the school leaders also improved their professional language, which in the long run may strengthen their ability to establish and maintain a good learning environment for students and ensure that all their school’s needs are met.

The Swedish National School Leader Training Programme is on advanced level and mandatory for all newly appointed school leaders. Even so, there are no requirements for previous education at this level. Consequently, the school leaders’ prior knowledge and skills vary. Some find the programme challenging while others have a previous university master’s degree, and thus feel comfortable in the higher education environment. Hence, these school leaders have more specific expectations about how such education should be carried out. In the study, it became clear that the school leaders tried to understand the learning activity by relating it to their previous, and different, experiences of education, which proved to be problematic for them. Their understanding and expectations of what school leader education should include, and how it should be carried out, created tensions in the training practice. Their expectations were largely in line with a traditional understanding of learning, and the internationally criticised form of school leader education (Cunningham and Sherman 2008, Cosner et al. 2018).

The study shows that it can be productive to integrate school leader training and school leading practice to support novice school leaders’ professional development. However, previous research on school leader education has pointed out that this opportunity is not fully utilised (Bush 2012, Cosner et al. 2018). There may be several reasons for this. From our experience developing a learning activity like this is a demanding process, partly (often) because of a lack of time. Developing a learning activity based on needs of practitioners can also be perceived as challenging for academically educated educators with long experience in higher education, where theoretical knowledge tends to be regarded as superior to practical knowledge. Lack of pedagogical knowledge can also make development and implementation of a complex learning activity like this challenging for an inexperienced educator. Thus, there is also a need for professional development of school leader educators developing school leader training programmes, to strengthen learning in training practice and school leading practice.

Conclusion

Several conclusions can be drawn related to the study’s aim to contribute to knowledge about school leader education by analysing the focal three-year learning activity in the Swedish National School Leadership Programme. Linking learning in and between training practice and school leading practice proved to be beneficial for novice school leaders’ professional development. Important elements for this included the design and length of the learning activity, its systematic approach, supportive tools and ‘forcing moments’. However, the school leaders’ perceptions of the learning activity, based on their previous experiences and knowledge interests, were also important. Consequently, introducing new ways of working within training practice entails requirements to create meaning and understanding of learning activities as well as school leader education overall, in dialogue with novice school leaders. Relatedly, many stakeholders, such as officials, politicians and union representatives, have opinions about what school leaders should know and do to achieve good school results (OECD 2013, Harris et al. 2016). Education that provides novice school leaders with tools for data gathering, analysis and critical reflection can help them make relevant decisions for their local practice, and thus reduce risks of them becoming puppets and performers of others’ agendas. Despite its limitations, this study has shown that integrating training practice and school leading practice provides good conditions for school leaders not only to develop these abilities, but also to communicate and promote their decisions both internally and externally.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.