The importance of school leadership has been acknowledged internationally (Crow, Lumby, & Pashiardis, 2008). School leadership is considered important when implementing reforms and vital to school improvement and student outcomes. The need for specific education in school leadership is now recognized worldwide.Several countries have formal education and requirements for one to become a school leader.

The preparation of aspiring school leaders and the development of school leaders have been researched for decades (e.g., Lumby et al., 2008; Young et al., 2009, Young & Crow, 2017). The literature has shown that school leadership development has several purposes, providers, stakeholders, and pedagogies (Author, 2016). However, the research on these topics is mainly built on single case studies, document analyses, surveys, and interviews. Studies with descriptive approaches focus on a range of different aspects of leadership development, such as the kind of leadership development in which school leaders participate; mentoring, supervision, and internships; recruitment; evaluation; socialization; different phases or stages of leadership development as well the curriculum and pedagogy (Crow, 2006; Huber, 2004; Lumby et al., 2008; Ylimaki & Jacobson, 2011; Young et al., 2009).

This article refers to a sub-study in a larger study, which focuses onhow the use of artifacts in school leadership programs is situated, experienced, and legitimated in program activities. The sub-study is supposed to contribute to the research about pedagogies by focusing on artifact mediation in situated program activities, empirically based on video data. Although the pedagogies are described in the literature, the attention is more devoted to examine what types of pedagogies that are used, rather than how those pedagogies are used (Author, 2016). The author argues knowledge about artifact mediation are vital when evaluating existing programs and when designing new programs. Consequently the purposes of the present study are (1) to contribute new insights into artifact mediationin school leadership programs at universities, and (2) to create a foundation for discussing the practical, political, and research implications of the findings locally and internationally.

In this study, the term artifactmediation will be used. The term artifact has a broad meaning.It refers to material artifacts(e.g., films, videos, books) and non-materialartifacts(e.g., language, theoretical models, analytic concepts, case methodologies). The study is positioned within a sociocultural tradition. The objects of sociocultural studies are events, activity, and practice (Daniels, 2008). Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) is one of several theories focusing on socio-materiality (Fenwick, Edwards, & Sawchuk, 2011). The artifacts are not only something “non-human,” but they also shape the activity. It is an assumption in CHAT that artifacts and objects (what motivates and directs activity) mediate human actions/interactions (Engeström, 1987). Consequently, it is important to examine artifact mediation in ongoing processes of leadership development in relation to objects. Vygotsky’s (1978) conceptualization of double stimulation is used because the artifacts being introduced in leadership programs (second stimuli) may come together with tasks (first stimuli). Whether the artifacts being introduced help students to solve the tasks is considered to be an empirical question in the present study.

Few scholars have used CHAT to analyze artifact mediation in leadership development. Thus, the sub-study is supposed to be a theoretical contribution in addition to an empirical contribution. The following research questions directs the sub-study:

1. What characterizes the tasks and the artifacts being introduced? (SQ1)[1]
2. What characterizes the processes of introducing and using the artifacts, and what is being accomplished? (SQ2)
3. How do students and faculty members experience the processes and any outcomes after seminar days? (SQ3

[1] SQ = sub-question

Author, 2016 Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Crossley, M., & Watson, K. (2003). Comparative and international research in education: Globalisation, context and difference. New York: Routledge. Crow, G. M. (2006). Complexity and the beginning principal in the United States: Perspectives on socialization. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(4), 310–325. Crow, G., Lumby, J., & Pashiardis, P. (2008). Introduction: Why an international handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders? In J. Lumby, G. Crow & P. Pashiardis (Eds.), International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders (pp. 1–17). New York: Routledge. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretic Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Contradiction and expansion: Understanding cultural historical activity theory. T. Fenwick, R. Edwards, R., & P. Sawchuk (Eds). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the socio-material, 56-73. Hallinger, P. (2003). The emergence of school leadership development in an era of globalization: 1980–2002. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping the landscape of school leadership development: A global perspective (pp. 3–22). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers. Huber, S. G. (2004). School leadership and leadership development: Adjusting leadership theories and development programs to values and the core purpose of school. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(6), 669–684. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103. Lumby, J., Crow, G., & Pashiardis, P. (2008). International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders. New York: Routledge. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Stake, R. e.(2005). Qualitative case studies. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 443-466. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ylimaki, R. M., & Jacobson, S. L. (2011). Comparative perspectives on organizational learning, instructional leadership, and culturally responsive practices: Conclusions and future directions. In R. M. Ylimaki & S. L. Jacobson (Eds.), US and cross-national policies, practices, and preparation (pp. 179–189). New York: Springer. Young, M. D., Crow, G. M., Murphy, J., & Ogawa, R. T. (2009). Handbook of research on the education of school leaders. New York: Routledge. Young, M. D. & Crow, G. M. (2017). Handbook of research on the education of school leaders. New York: Routledge.