General description on research questions, objectives and theoretical framework

 International research has documented a variety of approaches for fostering the professional development of school leaders (Lumby, Crow, & Pashiardis, 2008; Young, Crow, Murphy, & Ogawa, 2009). Different case methods are widely used as learning resources in leadership development programs (Taylor, Codeiro & Chrispeels, 2009). The goal of using case methods is to challenge students to struggle with multifaceted issues of the cases.

This article explores how school leaders discuss and dealt with challenges presented to them in an authentic case derived from school practices, when used as a learning resource in a school leadership development program.Empirical research on case-based instruction indicates that discussing cases and their attributes provides a potentially viable approach for increasing leadership knowledge (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009; Yukl, 2010). First, case-based or experiential learning allows leaders to make sense of complex, unfolding situations, to understand the expectations of followers, and to formulate visions and new practices (Mumford, Peterson, Robledo, & Hester, 2012). Second, case-based knowledge appears to be relatively easily acquired, such as through narratives that present actors who are engaged in problem solving (Kolodner, 1997). Third, evidence also indicates that how case methods facilitate learning depends on the content, organization, and application of cases in leadership development programs (cf. Mumford, Peterson, Robledo, & Hester, 2012; Jensen, & Møller, 2013). However, existing research has paid scant attention to the ways in which teams of school leaders actually exercise problem solving when authentic cases are used as learning resources in school leadership development programs.

Empirically, the article is grounded in a larger study of case-based instruction that was used in a National School Leadership Program in Norway situated at a university, which is a program for newly appointed school leaders (Hybertsen et al., 2014). The authentic case concerns complex challenges perceived by Norwegian principals (Møller, 2012). It is shaped and illustrated by a narrative about a combined primary and secondary school that had recently merged. In this article, we analyze how teams of school leaders discuss and deal with the challenges presented in the case: improving students’ test results, responding to criticisms from teachers and the Teachers’ Union, and responding to the expectations of all actors involved (i.e. teachers, parents, politicians, and the municipality).

The purpose of this article is to gain insight into how teams of school leaders deal with problems presented to them by cases in the context of a school leadership program and how the resources brought to bear on these problems could influence how the teams’ attempt to resolve challenges. Its aim is to develop new insight into how authentic cases mediates problem solving in teams of principals by answering the following research question: What kinds of interactional patterns constitute teams’ problem solving efforts? What kind of resources are mobilized and put into play in their problem-solving efforts? We will explore this question in the context of case-based instruction within a school leadership program for newly appointed school leaders in Norway.

The analytical framework of the present study is grounded in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (Engeström, 1999, 2001). CHAT offers an explicit set of analytical concepts for studying organizational phenomena, such as leadership related to organizational problem solving, as emerging constituents of object-oriented activity, giving virtue to the complex relations involved in their origin. Hence, a CHAT approach provides an opportunity to study in depth how teams of school leaders frame and respond to leadership challenges and the ways in which solutions to problems presented to them become constituted in the interplay of individuals, purposes, and tools to the affordance and constraints of the context in which their work is nested (Aas, 2009; Vennebo, 2016).

References Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasiexperimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly, (20), 764–784. Young, M. D., Crow, G. M., Murphy, J., & Ogawa, R. T. (2009). Handbook of research on the education of school leaders. New York: Routledge. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L. Punamäki-Gitai (Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 1–16.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels & K. D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 202–328). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hybertsen, I. D., Stensaker, B., Federici, R. A., Olsen, M. S., Solem, A., & Aamodt, P. O. (2014). Evalueringen av den nasjonale rektorutdanningen: NIFU, NTNU. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. Jensen, R., & Møller, J. (2013). School data as mediators in professional development. Journal of Educational Change, 14(1), 95-112. Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy: A view from case-based reasoning. American Psychologist, (52), 57–66. Ludvigsen, S. R., & Digernes, T. Ø. (2009). Research leadership: Productive research communities and the integration of research fellows. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels & K. D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory (pp. 240–254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lumby, J., Crow, G., & Pashiardis, P. (2008). International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders. New York: Routledge. Mumford, M. D., Peterson, D., Robledo, I., & Hester, K. (2012). Cases in leadership education: Implications of human cognition. In S. Snook, N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), The Handbook for Teaching Leadership: Knowing, Doing, and Being (pp. 21–33). Harvard: Sage Publications. Møller, J. (2012). The construction of a public face as a school principal. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(5), 452–460. Vennebo, K. F. (2016). Innovative work in school development: exploring leadership enactment. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership. DOI: 10.1177/1741143215617944 Taylor, D. L., Cordeiro, P., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2009). Pedagogy. Handbook of research on the education of school leaders, 319-370. Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.