Aim: 1) to investigate conceptual models for professional development in scientific literature, and 2) to evaluate and select a conceptual model which could help understand school principals’ professional development.

In a rapidly changing world, the need for professional development (PD) applies to all professions, across all industries and areas of work. Education and educational leadership at school level are no exceptions. PD implies that something (what?) in the professional individual changes (how?) over time. But first, why is PD of school principals important?

Why? Reports show a global crisis in the recruitment of school principals (OECD, 2020). Research also show how a possibility of indulging in PD activities strengthens retention and raises job-satisfaction for school principals. (Barber et al., 2010; Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Pollock & Hauseman, 2016). Understanding PD for school principals might therefore be part of a solution for educational and societal challenges.

A literature review on school principals’ PD shows:

• an imbalance in research among PD for school staff, researchers are to a higher degree interested in PD for teachers than school principals. A Google Scholar search on “professional development for principals” provides only 45% of a similar search on “professional development for teachers”.
• that most focus among researchers is put on school principals entering principalship, less on PD for experienced and even less on late-career principals. (Lazenby et al., 2022).
• that primarily formal PD learning opportunities occupy researchers, while informal and nonformal are of less interest. (Veelen et al., 2017).
• only a few in-depth studies globally in which school principals are given space to reflect on their own PD. (Parylo, 2012).
• that theoretical frameworks and models for school principals’ PD are scarce. (Assor & Oplatka, 2003; Kremer-Hayon & Fessler, 1992; Weindling, 2000).  
• that predominant paradigms on educational leadership at school level are mostly silent regarding school principals’ PD.

What? Literature offers a range of conceptual models for understanding professional competence. No model is specifically developed for school principals. Based on a separate analysis, a suitable model would be the holistic approach suggested by Cheetham and Chivers (1998). It is suitable because of 1) the versatile discernment of knowledge and skills, 2) the acknowledgment of meta-competencies and 3) the recognition of context and work environment (where).

How? Research lacks a generally accepted definition of PD, however, it is often described as a process which is complex, interactive, formal, informal, manageable, and measurable. (Desimone et al., 2002). PD furthermore features “individual, social, and occupational dimensions in a collaborative, inquisitive, and self-directed learning environment” (Sancar et al., 2021, p. 4). From a social constructivist perspective, PD is discussed in terms of “lifelong learning”, implying accumulation of skills and professional knowledge, as well as change of value and growth of personal qualities. (Mushayikwa & Lubben, 2009).

The form for PD varies, it takes place not only as formal activities like programs, courses, seminars and conferences but also in informal and nonformal settings. Pennings, Bottenheft, Van de Boer-Visschedjik and Stubbé (2019) state that informal learning is “the most important way to acquire and develop the skills and competencies required for work” (ibid., p. 1). Hess and Kelly (2007) report that 96% of school principals considered informal learning more important for the job than formal in-service training. Professional networks represent another example of this type of informal learning environment and they sometimes include PD activities which are “self-initiated, self-directed and self-managed” (Lazenby et al., 2022, p. 542). Nonformal PD includes for instance self-study processes.

The purpose of this paper is to find a theoretical framework which would help understand how school principals develop professionally.

A literature review focusing on conceptual models for development of professional competence was conducted according to systematic steps described by for instance by Xia and Watson (2019) as a process of planning, conducting and reporting. Search engines engaged were Google Scholar and ERIC in addition to the net-based services offered by the library at Åbo Akademi University. Searches were conducted using words like “conceptual models of professional development”, “models of professional development”, “professional development”, “models for professional development of school principals”, and “professional development of school principals”. The search resulted in many hits. The reading process started from material a) recently published, b) most cited, and c) based upon abstract reading, most central for the aim of the paper. During the study relevant references led to further investigation, ending up with – symbolically – a web of relevant material linked together, closely touching the central themes. The primary result of the search was a set of profession specific and generic conceptual models for PD. The profession specific results included a few models applied on school principals’ PD. (Assor & Oplatka, 2003; Kremer-Hayon & Fessler, 1992; Weindling, 2000). Most models displayed PD as development following a certain trajectory with certain stages. A few models presented other approaches. An interesting secondary result was literature tackling PD of school principals in other ways than through conceptual models. For instance, a few doctoral dissertations investigating how school principals perceive their professional development (Bohn, 2021; Galaviz, 2011; Geren, 2016; McCracken, 2017) in addition to articles and (international) reports highlighting (the need for) school principals’ PD. After the review, an evaluation process of conceptual models for PD was undertaken. Important tools in the evaluation were previous research showing the school principals’ doings and beings (what) – as earlier stated, summarised in the model of professional competence by Cheetham and Chivers (1998) – and contextual matters (where), which emerged as an important feature. Gurr and Drysdale (2018) and Hallinger (2018) describe context of school principals with variables like socio-cultural, technological, economic and political context of the education system and the specific characteristics of the school perspective context, like culture and climate, teaching and learning, student outcomes, community, leader and school characteristics. Understanding school principals’ PD requires an understanding of their context. The evaluation process led to a result, some models were rejected and one model was selected.

This review resulted in a closer look at 22 conceptual models for how professionals develop, ten of them representing models specific for education and the rest more generic models. Most conceptual models reflected a development in certain stages, while a few outlined PD in other ways, for instance, as a scale or dichotomy. Several conceptual models specifically outlined a framework for PD of school principals. They can all be referred to as stage models, see for instance Day and Bakioglu (2002), Reeves, and Moos and Forrest (1998) and Ribbins (1997). Stage models are criticised for simplifying development as an one-size-fits-all trajectory, not explaining PD during the whole career, nor dealing with deeper understanding of the profession. (Dall’Alba & Sandberg, 2006). In addition, there is no unison voice of how many stages there are, nor how long different stages last. Other models still talk about stages, but with an additional aspect – see for instance Assor and Oplatka (2003) with a psychodynamic aspect, Weindling (2000) grounded in socialisation theory and Kremer-Hayon and Fessler (1992) with certain dichotomies (idealism-realism, stability-stagnancy). None of these stage models were found to thoroughly and holistically reflect the complexity of PD for school principals. However, in the critique towards stage models, Dall’Alba and Sandberg (2006), add understanding as a dimension to PD, which – together with the outline of knowledge and skills presented by Cheetham and Chivers (1998) – acknowledges the complexity and manifold dimensions of PD of school principals. This theoretical and hypothetical framework will subsequently be examined in my dissertation on school principals’ PD. The empirical investigation employs a qualitative design, using a phenomenographic approach based on interviews with school principals.

Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (1998). The reflective (and competent) practitioner: A model of professional competence which seeks to harmonise the reflective practitioner and competence‐based approaches. Journal of European Industrial Training, 22(7), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599810230678 Dall’Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling Professional Development: A Critical Review of Stage Models. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 383–412. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076003383 Galaviz, P. (2011). Principals’ Perceptions of Their Own Professional Development [Doctoral thesis, The University of Texas at Austin]. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/a4300096-4d5e-473c-8c86-985e7dcc517d/content Geren, L. L. (2016). Principal’s perceptions of professional development: Options that support effective leadership [Doctoral thesis]. Illinois State University. Gurr, D., & Drysdale, L. (2018). System Leadership and School Leadership. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 3(2), 207–229. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2018.2.4 Hallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216670652 Lazenby, S., McCulla, N., & Marks, W. (2022). The further professional development of experienced principals. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(4), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1716999 OECD. (2020). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en Ribbins, P. (1997). Heads on deputy headship: Impossible roles for invisible role holders? Educational Management & Administration, 25(3), 295–308. Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971