A number of researchers have stressed the role of principals in educational development and classroom learning (Leithwood and Day, 2008; Pashiardis, 2014; Pont et al., 2008), and this study focuses on principals’ pedagogical leadership, a concept used in relation to school development, especially in the Nordic countries. There is also an ongoing debate concerning what pedagogical leadership is, and by studying what activities school principals link to their pedagogical leadership, this study can add knowledge to the interpretation and continuous discussion of the concept.

The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze critical incidents in school principals’ pedagogical leadership. The study is based on narratives from 50 principals and their descriptions of a critical incident in their pedagogical leadership (the situation, the objective of the activity, who was involved, what happened, why did it happen, the objective of the activity and the results of the activity)

Most definitions of pedagogical leadership are linked to both transformational and instructional leadership. In school leadership research, the terms “transformational leadership” and “instructional leadership” are used in the context of research on school improvement and successful principals. Transformational leadership focuses on schools’ development, which means, for example, to build a vision for the school, set goals, provide intellectual stimulation and individual support, show concrete examples of good performance, have high expectations, create a culture of school improvement and incorporate everybody’s influence into decisions about the school (Leithwood, 2002). Instructional leadership has many similarities with transformational leadership, but with a sharper focus on what happens in the classroom. The leader works closely with teachers and students to discuss and evaluate teaching, and ensures that instructional time is protected and that a favorable climate for learning exists (Hallinger, 2005). Successful principals use both “transformational” and “instructional leadership,” and Day and Leithwood (2007) indicate four success factors for these principals, as identified in the International Successful School Principal Project: defining the vision, values and direction; improving conditions for teaching and learning; restructuring the organization, redesigning roles and responsibilities; and enhancing teaching and learning.

Törnsén and Ärlestig (2014) constructed a Swedish model for pedagogical leadership based on the national curriculum, their own research, and factors of successful principals identified in the International Successful School Principal Project (Day and Leithwood, 2007). They argued that pedagogical leadership can be summarized in three main parts: creating conditions for learning and teaching, leading learning and teaching, and linking the everyday work of teaching and learning with organizational goals and results. The three elements are linked to the management of goals, processes, and results. The elements interact with each other and form a whole for the leadership. Törnsén and Ärlestig give concrete examples of what pedagogical leadership can contain. Goal orientation is about pedagogical leaders creating conditions for learning and teaching with a starting point in the school’s mission and goals for students’ learning. In this model, the principal has special goals and a vision for the school, high expectations on students and teachers, and they work to develop the school’s internal organization. Process orientation means that pedagogical leaders lead learning and teaching through classroom visits, supervision and feedback, or discussions about teaching methods, didactics, and relationships. Result orientation means that the pedagogical leader connects the school and pupils’ results with the daily tasks of learning and teaching. Principals need to analyze the results, investigate what explains the results, and work on improvement. With these perspectives on pedagogical leadership, this study examines:

−         What goals, processes and results are linked with pedagogical leadership according to the principals’ critical incidents?

−         What leadership actions are used to reach the expected outcomes?

Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. Amundson, N., Maglio, A-S. (2005) Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications: London vol. 5(4): 475-497 Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Day C. & Leithwood K. (2007). Successful principal leadership in times of change. Dordrecht: Springer Education Act of Sweden (SFS 2010:800). Flanagan, J. C. (1954) The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin Vol 51. No 4 July 1954 Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional Leadership and the School Principal: A Passing Fancy that Refuses to Fade Away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4:3, 221-239 Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R . (2002). Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Buckingham: Open University Press Leithwood K., & Day C. (2008). The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes, school leadership and management. Formerly School Organisation, 28(1), 1–4. Pashiardis, P (2014). (Ed) Modeling shool leadership across Europe: in search of new frontiers. Springer Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving School Leadership, Volume 1 Policy and Practice. Report OECD. Törnsén, M., & Ärlestig, H. (2014). Pedagogiskt ledarskap – en modell för styrning och ledning av vardagens processer i relation till mål och resultat. In Höög, J & Johansson, O (eds.), Struktur Kultur Ledarskap Fortsatta studier av framgångsrika skolor. Lund: Studentlitteratur