The importance of school leadershiphas been acknowledged internationally (Crow, Lumby, & Pashiardis, 2008). School leadership is considered important for implementing the necessary reforms and is key to the improvement of school offerings and student outcomes. The need for a specific education of school leaders is now recognized worldwide. Accordingly, formal programs are available in several countries to enable individuals to meet the requirements of leadership in a school setting. The preparation of aspiring school leaders and their development have been researched for decades (e.g., Bush & Jackson, 2002; Chin, 2003; Hallinger, 2003; Lumby et al., 2008; Young et al., 2009; Young & Crow, 2017). The literature has shown that school leadership development involves several purposes, providers, stakeholders, and pedagogies (Author 1, 2016). However, the related literature features research that is mainly built on single case studies, document analyses, surveys, and interviews. The present study is based on contextual interviews (Hultmann, 2004) with students and faculty members after video-recording from teaching activities in cohorts, as well as interviews with faculty members who have been engaged in the program for years and students who have been enrolled in the programs some years back. The aim is to examine and compare faculty members´ and students´ experiences with the use of pedagogical tool (tool mediation) in university programs in two different educational contexts, and discuss how different educational context constitute the selection and the use of pedagogical tools in teaching activities. The research questions are as follows:

1. How do faculty members experience and legitimate the use of tools in leadership preparation program? (RQ1)
2. How do students experience the use of tools in ongoing courses and after course completion? (RQ2)

This study is positioned within a sociocultural tradition. Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) is the theoretical lens of the present study. The theory is one of several theories that focus on socio-materiality (Fenwick, Edwards, & Sawchuk, 2011). The tools are not only “non-human,” but they also shape activity. CHAT assumes that cultural tools and objects (which motivate and direct activity) mediate human actions or interactions (Engeström, 1987). Consequently, it is important to examine experiences with tool mediation in the Education of School leaders: American and Norwegian Cases.

This study comprises two cases, that is, two university programs, one implemented in Norway (Case 1) and the other in the United States (Case 2). To examine experiences with tool mediation in school leadership programs, the authors have used a qualitative multiple-case design (Stake, 2005). The two cases are subject to a comparison. Comparative approaches enable cultural and contextual sensitivity in a study (Crossley & Watson, 2003). They offer insights into similarities and differences as well as diverse cultural and historical aspects (Ragin, 1994). These two cases were deemed appropriate for comparison because the historical, cultural, and policy contexts in the two countries are starkly different. Unlike Norway, the US has had a long tradition of offering and researching leadership programs as well as discussing pedagogies. A point of similarity is that both programs are implemented at the university-level. The courses under study are part of the master’s programs in educational leadership. Each cohort comprises approximately 25 students. Video recorded whole-class activities in cohort groups (one cohort group in Case 1 and two cohort groups in Case 2), constitute the supporting data in the present paper. In Case 2, the seminar days were stretched over three weeks. The summer class that was observed in Case 2 lasted for 5–7 weeks, while the class in Case 1 lasted for nine weeks. The supporting video data for this paper consist of 17h in each case. The use of tools being observed served as a background for interviewing faculty members and students about the ongoing programs. Semi-structured and individual interviews of 60 minutes have been conducted with three faculty members in each case about how faculty members experience and legitimate the use of tools in leadership program (RQ1). Semi-structure interviews in pairs and groups were conducted to answer RQ2 related to how students experience the use of tools in ongoing courses and after course completion. Audio recordings will be made with one group of students (2-4) in each case to answer RQ2 in ongoing courses, and in groups of 4-6 students after the completion of the programs. The data have been subject to content analyses.

The video data revealed in Case 1 that PowerPoint presentations were the main tools in the teaching situations, whereas in Case 2 comprised scientific book chapters and articles were the main tools in the teaching situations. By contrast, in Case 2, Power Points were seldom introduced as tool definitely in the teaching. Instead, American principal program students were supposed to read approximately two articles in advance. In Case 1, most of the time was devoted to lectures consisting of orally presentations from the teacher with frequently five minutes plenary discussions. In Case 2, the time was primarily spent with principal program students collaborating in pairs and groups, working on tasks described in the handouts. These activities, mostly in small groups and pairs, occurred in addition to the participation in plenary discussions. The students appreciated the tools being introduced and use in both cases, while the faculty members were more critical. The students mentioned how the tools in different ways were relevant in daily leadership practices after course completion. The students in both cases appreciated the tools being used in the programs. The students in Case 1 admitted they were not reading much literature in advance. The contextual video data showed they did not have to read in advance to answer the questions for reflections, which were posed from the lecturer. The students in Case 2 expressed that they were grateful for the way the teacher introduced the texts with reading guidance, and what they called “scaffolding”. Also, they said that they liked being forced to dig deeper in the concepts and theories, because becoming a greater-minded leader was not about finding a fast-track way.

Author, 2016 Bush, T., & Jackson, D. (2002). A preparation for school leadership international perspectives. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 30(4), 417–429. Chin, J. (2003). Reconceptualizing administrative preparation of principals: Epistemological issues and perspectives. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping the landscape of school leadership development: A global perspective (pp. 53–67). Groningen, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers. Crossley, M., & Watson, K. (2003). Comparative and international research in education: Globalisation, context and difference. New York: Routledge. 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-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit. 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 (pp. 56–73). New York: Routledge. 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. Hultman, G. (2006). In Between. Knowledge relations and use in context. In B. Wingård, B. (Ed.) 2006. Livslång nyfikenhet. En vänbok till Gunilla Härnsten. (Lifelong curiosity). Stockholm Institute of Education Press. 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. 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. Berkeley: University of California Press. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 443–466. 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.