Research shows that the success or failure of changes in school administrators’ practice can be explored by examining their way of thinking (Leithwood & Montgomery 1986; Stewart 2002). In the age of development and rapid change, school principals are expected to harmonize their schools with the new demands and competitive environment of the educational sector. They are required to be qualified in many areas in and out of school in order to cope with the fast development of technology, changes in national development plans, globalization of education, and the emergence of new educational approaches (Bakioglu & Dalgic, 2013, Dalgic & Bakioglu, in press). Therefore it is obvious that in order to make changes in the behavior and attitudes of school administrators and teachers, the first action to take should be changing school principals’ way of thinking (Leithwood & Steinback, 1993) and improve the quality of their reflective moments. They need to cooperate and engage in deep dialogue with their colleagues in order to reflect on their experiences and improve their practice through systematic questioning (Fullan, 1997; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). “What situations push school principals into reflection?, and “On what main problems or events they reflect alone, with colleagues or in groups?” seem to be important questions to contribute to the professional development of school principals.

The purpose of the current study is to determine the school principals’ areas of reflection in Turkish and Danish school administration contexts. Rather than making a comparison between the situation in two countries, an in depth description of school principals’ areas of reflection in the two countries was intended with this study. The study also aims to determine whether school principals’ seniority on the job has an impact on the areas they use reflection. With the findings of the study it is aimed to contribute to research on administrative reflection and research on career stages.

Dalgic, G., & Bakioğlu, A. (In press). The effect of stakeholders on the reflective practice of school principals: Practices in Istanbul and Copenhagen. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. (In publication). Bakioğlu, A. & Dalgic, G. (2013). The Possible Barriers behind Reflective Thinking and Practice: Experiences of School Principals from Turkey and Denmark. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice (ESTP), 13(2), 813-838. Fullan, M. (1997). What’s worth fighting for in the principalship. New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school? New York: Teachers College Press. Leithwood, K. ve Montgomery, D. (1986). Improving principal effectiveness: The principal profile. Toronto: OISE. Leithwood, K., & Steinback, R. (1993). Total quality leadership: Expert thinking plus transformational practice. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 7(4), 311–37. Stewart, D. (2002). What does a reflective principal do? The Journal of the Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand, August.