Schools, as social institutions, reveal and mediate societal conflicts and dynamics. In a globalized, digitalized world, school leaders must navigate, among others, challenges like fake news, social media, migration, climate change, and anti-democratic tendencies in 'western countries'. These accompanying societal transformations reshape the demands placed on school leaders. International studies highlight school principals’ significant impact on school quality (Day et al., 2020; Hallinger, 2011), making their response to these challenges crucial for ensuring equal access to education. By examining principals’ learning processes, this study contributes to understanding how school leaders build the skills and orientations required to meet contemporary challenges. Understanding how principals learn – what shapes their learning processes, which experiences influence their leadership development, and how they navigate professional transitions – is essential for designing effective professional development structures.

Internationally, training opportunities for school leaders vary in scope, content, and accessibility (Montecinos et al., 2022; Tulowitzki et al., 2021). German training programs have increased (Johannmeyer & Cramer, 2023), but are often deemed insufficient, and only half of all principals participate (Cramer et al., 2020). This highlights the need for a better workplace-based, practice-oriented learning, as formal training alone does not adequately prepare principals for the complex demands of their role.

This study explores two main questions: (1) What are the learning processes of principals as they develop leadership skills? (2) How do they navigate arising challenges? The objective of this study is to conduct a thorough and theoretical analysis of the learning processes of principals, providing insights for future professional support structures.

Transitions, such as the shift from teacher to school leader, can be understood as learning processes (Amling, 2019a). More broadly, handling professional challenges itself constitutes learning (Holzkamp, 1993). To distinguish learning from education, I define it as “specific, definable learning topics, i.e., stocks of knowledge and skills” (Nohl et al., 2015, p. 153). Learning, when not reduced to a cognitive, individual process, is embedded in social practices (Göhlich & Zirfas, 2007). School leaders structure organizational spaces that facilitate both teaching and learning (Adams, 2023; Bonsen, 2016) while balancing internal organizational demands and external stakeholder interests. The organization, with its specific roles, rules, and practical logics, is central to both the actions and learning of school leaders (Gräsel et al., 2006; Klatetzki, 2023; Mehta, 2013). Consequently, the situatedness of learning processes (Lave & Wenger, 2011) plays a key role in understanding how principals learn, requiring a perspective that accounts for the collective dimensions of individual learning.

Using a reconstructive approach, I examine principals’ learning orientations from a praxeological-sociological perspective (Bohnsack, 2021). My data consists of currently six narrative interviews (Schütze, 2016), with a final goal of twelve. These interviews follow a theoretical sampling strategy (Strübing, 2019), considering current age, professional experience and school type. The data is analyzed using the documentary method (Bohnsack, 2006).

Learning orientations describe how knowledge is acquired and linked to prior knowledge (Nohl, 2014). Some scholars refer to an overarching learning habitus (Herzberg, 2005), defined as a “comprehensive experiential attitude [...] towards learning that reflects the entire person and their social embedding” (Nohl, 2014, p. 159). While learning orientations across different activities are likely interconnected, the relationship between specific learning orientations and an overarching learning habitus remains underexplored (Amling, 2019b).

This study focuses on learning orientations in small-scale processes of work-related knowledge change. The sub-questions are: What kind of different learning orientations can be reconstructed? How do they relate to each other? What role do (professional) biographical experiences and organizational contexts play? Addressing these questions contributes to understanding how school leaders develop professional expertise within their institutional settings.

My work is based on the praxeological sociology of knowledge (Bohnsack, 2021). This theory focuses on the ‘connectedness of being‘ of knowledge and distinguishes between communicative-generalizing knowledge (norms, argumentations) and conjunctive knowledge (atheoretical, experience-based knowledge) (Bohnsack, 2006). Incorporated and habitualized knowledge shows the link between praxeological sociology of knowledge and Bourdieu’s theory of habitus (Bohnsack, 2017, 269ff.). The interplay between norm and habitus is in a constant state of tension, which is related to the modus operandi of practice. Conjunctive knowledge also influences how new knowledge is processed and incorporated by the actors. The acquisition of knowledge is thus socially located and socially shaped. Narrative interviews (Schütze, 2016) are particularly suitable for the reconstruction of experiences, as the interviewees become entangled due to the narrative compulsion (Kallmeyer & Schütze, 1977) in order to give as comprehensible an account of their experiences as possible within the framework of the interview. When evaluating the interviews, the text types of narration and description are of particular interest, as this is where the representation of performance (proposed performance) can be reconstructed (Bohnsack, 2017). In contrast to direct observation (performative performance), the reconstruction on the basis of representations methodically enables the generalization ability of the modus operandi (ibid.). The aim of the analysis is not to verify the truth of what is presented (Bohnsack, 2021) but to reconstruct the “layering of experience” (Schütze, 2016) reflected in the narrative with its implicit knowledge of the narrator. The interviews are analyzed using the documentary method (Nohl, 2010). The evaluation is divided into different steps, which are based on the different levels of knowledge. In the first interpretation step, the immanent meaning (what was said) is carried out with the formulating interpretation. In the next step, the documentary meaning is reconstructed with the reflective interpretation (how was something said). In this step, the objectifiable statements are placed in relation to the semantic and syntactic meanings (Kleemann et al., 2013). As part of the evaluation using the documentary method, the different levels of knowledge are taken into account, with a particular focus on the interweaving of these levels, i.e. the tension between norm and habitus. This tense relationship is the learning orientation, and its reconstruction can only be achieved through empirical comparison. Therefore, a comparative analysis with the help of further empirical cases is central.

The aim of the interpretation using the documentary method is to create a typology. Based on my theoretical assumptions that the learning orientations can differ in relation to the learning object and practical dimension, it will probably be a multidimensional typology (Amling, 2019a). The genesis of the different types of learning orientations is explained by the experience stratification of the different conjunctive experience spaces. In spring 2025, I will have completed the first survey phase and finished evaluating the first cases. I will present the first interim results at the ECER 2025. My presentation will focus on a case comparison of two school principals, who are employed at the same school but at different times. The objective is to illustrate how socio-historical context and professional biographical experiences affect their location in the school organization and influence their work-related learning. The discussion will also address the development of ideas for professionalization based on the results. The results of my research are intended to contribute to the international discussion on the learning of school leaders, especially in the tension-filled field between organization, profession and social challenges. My research is based in Germany, but the theoretical considerations can also be transferred to and used in other national contexts. The way in which school leaders have learned from crises in the past will provide us with important knowledge to support them in the future in times of societal challenges, with the goal of equal participation of students in education and society.

Adams, D. (2023). Educational Leadership in the Twenty-First Century. In D. Adams (Hrsg.), Educational Leadership (S.1–15). Springer Nature Singapore. Amling, S. (2019a). Lernprozesse beim Übergang in neue berufliche Kontexte. Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, 95(1), 103–122. Amling, S. (2019b). Lehrerhabitus und Lernen der Lehrkräfte - Eine Diskussion empirischer Studien und konzeptioneller Überlegungen. In R.-T. Kramer & H. Pallesen (Hrsg.), Studien zur Professionsforschung und Lehrerbildung. Lehrerhabitus: Theoretische und empirische Beiträge zu einer Praxeologie des Lehrerberufs. Bohnsack, R. (2017). Praxeologische Wissenssoziologie. Verlag Barbara Budrich. Day, C., Sammons, P. & Gorgen, K. (2020). Successful School Leadership. Education Development Trust. Göhlich, M. & Zirfas, J. (2007). Der pädagogische Grundbegriff des Lernens. Odgojne znanosti/Educational Sciences, 9(2), 7–24. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 124–142. Klatetzki, T. (2023). Professionelle Organisation. In M. Apelt & V. Tacke (Hrsg.), Handbuch Organisationstypen (S.351–375). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Lave, J. & Wenger, É. (2011). Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation (24. Auflage). Cambridge University Press. Mehta, J. (2013). From Bureaucracy to Profession: Remaking the Educational Sector for the Twenty-First Century. Harvard Educational Review, 83(3), 463–488. Montecinos, C., Galdames, S., Flessa, J. & Valenzuela, J. P. (2022). Pathways to the school principalship: An international scoping review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(2), 285–306. Nohl, A.-M. (2010). Narrative Interview and Documentary Interpretation. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff & W. Weller (Hrsg.), Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method: In International Educational Research (S.195–218). Verlag Barbara Budrich. Schütze, F. (2016). Biographieforschung und narratives Interview. In F. Schütze, W. Fiedler & H.-H. Krüger (Hrsg.), ZBBS-Buchreihe: Studien zur qualitativen Bildungs-, Beratungs- und Sozialforschung. Sozialwissenschaftliche Prozessanalyse: Grundlagen der qualitativen Sozialforschung (S.55–73). Budrich, Barbara. Tulowitzki, P., Pietsch, M. & Köferli, S. (2023). Wirksamkeit von Schulleitung im Hinblick auf das Lernen. In N. Anderegg, A. Knies, L. Jesacher-Rößler & J. Breitschaft (Hrsg.), Führung von und in Bildungsorganisationen: Band 2. Leadership for Learning: Gemeinsam Schulen lernwirksam gestalten : Führung von und in Bildungsorganisationen (1. Auflage 2023, S.117–131). hep.