International Journal of Educational Management

Classroom observations and supervision – essential dimensions of pedagogical leadership

Helene Ärlestig, Monika Törnsen,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Helene Ärlestig, Monika Törnsen, (2014) "Classroom observations and supervision – essential dimensions
of pedagogical leadership", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 28 Issue: 7, pp.856-868,
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2014-0001
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2014-0001
Downloaded on: 19 September 2017, At: 10:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 33 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1123 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Leadership for school success: lessons from effective principals", International Journal
of Educational Management, Vol. 28 Iss 7 pp. 798-811 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJEM-08-2013-0125">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2013-0125</a>
(2014),"Autonomous leadership and a centralised school system: An odd couple? Empirical insights from
Cyprus", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 28 Iss 7 pp. 823-841 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2013-0124">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2013-0124</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:361835 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

IJEM
28,7
Classroom observations and
supervision – essential
dimensions of pedagogical
856 leadership
Received 8 August 2013
Revised 2 January 2014
Helene Ärlestig and Monika Törnsen
Accepted 3 January 2014 Centre for Principal Development, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The main task of every school is to contribute to student learning and achievement. In the
twenty-first century, national and international evaluations and comparisons have focussed on
measurable student and school results. Not only teachers but also principals are held accountable
for school results, which increase expectations of principals to work to enhance student learning
and improve outcomes. In Sweden, a principal’s work with a given school’s core mission is labeled as
pedagogical leadership, a concept that includes diverse activities related to national goals and school
results. Aspects of pedagogical leadership include principals’ classroom observations and communication
about teaching and learning issues. The purpose of this paper is to describe a model of pedagogical
leadership as a base for principals’ experience with the aim to develop their understanding of
pedagogical leadership.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper builds on data from three groups of principals who
participated in a course to learn more about pedagogical leadership.
Findings – The participating principals performed their pedagogical leadership in different manners
and with varying quality. During the course, there was a shift in what activities and duties the
principals prioritized. The findings highlight the importance of democratic leadership and the
improvement of teacher capacity and student outcomes.
Practical implications – The paper gives practical examples on how principals can improve their
understanding of pedagogical leadership.
Originality/value – There are few articles on how pedagogical leadership is understood and
practiced. The paper provides a model for pedagogical leadership and empirical data that shows that
the concept deserves to be viewed as a qualitative concept that need interpretation.
Keywords Principals, Sweden, Classroom observation, Pedagogical leadership,
Classroom supervision
Paper type Research paper

The twenty-first century has seen a growing interest in measuring and comparing
school results. Researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and national agencies try to
identify the factors that most benefit individual students and their learning. Research
shows that although cultural, capital, and socioeconomic conditions affect student
outcomes (Mortimore et al., 1988), schoolteachers and principals are the single most
important in-school variables in relation to student outcomes (Day and Leithwood,
2007; Robinson, 2007). An analysis of factors explaining school results should include
a closer look at principals’ actions and beliefs in relation to the school’s learning
International Journal of Educational program, teacher performance, and student results. Teachers in Sweden traditionally
Management
Vol. 28 No. 7, 2014
have closed their classroom doors, and there has been little insight into and feedback
pp. 856-868 on their teaching unless they have voluntarily asked for it. Principals have mainly
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-354X
worked with more general issues connected to schooling and have not been required
DOI 10.1108/IJEM-01-2014-0001 to do classroom observations. Pedagogical leadership has been a rhetorical concept
 without explicit expectations of specific activities. The current focus on results and Classroom
accountability, however, requires a more active leadership role in teaching, learning, observations and
and the interplay between teachers and students.
This has created an interest among universities and practitioners to learn and supervision
understand more about what pedagogical leadership can look like. As both leaders
and active researchers, we have created a model for and a definition of pedagogical
leadership. The model aims to concretize pedagogical leadership in a Swedish context, 857
building on earlier research and policy documents.
This paper first presents the model and definition of pedagogical leadership. It then
focusses on research during a course on pedagogical leadership, with a specific focus
on the role of the principal in relation to the teaching and learning program. The aim is
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

to assess whether new knowledge can lead to changed understanding and action in
a principal’s daily work with the school’s core activity – i.e. teaching and learning.
The study focusses on principals who attend a course in pedagogical leadership.
Initially, we describe the definition and model of pedagogical leadership and how it
relates to history as well as existing policy and research. The model connects principals’
work with objectives, processes, and results as three interrelated parts. We discuss
why it can be difficult to exercise pedagogical leadership even if it is required in the
policy documents. Thereafter, we describe the method for this study, the framework
for the course, and our findings. In our concluding discussion, we emphasize the
importance of connecting the concept of pedagogical leadership to learning and activities
like classroom observation to ensure a positive effect on the teaching and learning
program. Even if there is no best practice in relation to pedagogical leadership, the
model in the first section can be used to analyze and discuss how pedagogical
leadership can be operationalized.

A definition and model of pedagogical leadership

A principal works in a complex environment with expectations from several actors at
different levels, and their workdays are occupied with various tasks and events.
To handle the great variety of issues and prioritize what to do and when to act, a principal’s
leadership needs to be viewed from a holistic perspective that integrates the various
expectations and demands inherent to the role. Being responsible for students’ learning
and school results requires strategic thinking, knowledge, and an active focus on the
core processes: teaching and learning.
According to our definition, to be a pedagogical leader means to focus on the core
task of schooling – continuous student learning in relation to academic, social, and
civic objectives. This leadership also entails learning for the principal and teachers
so that school and student results improve. To govern others through learning
requires democratic behavior wherein the willingness to involve and listen to others
are necessary aspects. Sweden has a long tradition of working with democracy at all
levels of society. Pedagogical leadership is more connected to learning than control.
Classroom observations provide a joint starting point and frame for conversations
between the principal and the teacher about the interactions between the teacher and
the students.
Our pedagogical leadership model consists of three interrelated perspectives.
The most obvious perspective is working with teacher capacity and the instructional core
of schooling taking place in classrooms. Another is to work with factors such as setting
directions, expressing high expectations, and encouraging and creating prerequisites for
collaboration and communication of teacher activities. These two perspectives reflect two
 IJEM categories of pedagogical leadership, direct and indirect, as described by Törnsén (2009b)
28,7 and based on Swedish policy and international research on successful principal
leadership (Day and Leithwood, 2007; Hallinger, 2003). A third perspective is related to
student performance and school results.
The principals’ task in the national curriculum is one point of departure. The three
perspectives, related to goal-steering, process-steering, and result-steering, inform
858 each other, which is reflected in the model. Pedagogical leadership as a complex task
with many concrete implications is another point of departure. The leadership
process is characterized by cooperation between actors, border-setting, and dialogue
(Figure 1).
To concretize each of the perspectives, various keywords are used to capture the
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

essence of each perspective and to connect the model to concrete leadership activities
and actions.

Leading the core processes of teaching and learning

. Classroom observations.
. Systematic feedback and confirmation.
. Learning conversations between actors.
Here, the principal is directly involved in the core processes of schooling (Törnsén,
2009b). This means includes making classroom observations and having conversations
about teaching and learning issues. When principals obtain first-hand information about
students’ situations and performance and/or about individual teaching, their mandate
to support, challenge, and develop teachers can be increased. This also creates opportunities
to deepen the conversation about the core of teachers’ work using dialogue and
boundary setting as tools to enhance learning ( Johansson and Zachrisson, 2008;
Ärlestig, 2008).

Goal-steering
Provide prerequisites for
ng
teachning and learning

Result-steering
Relate the results of Process-steeringg
students and the
organization to the Lead the core processes
daily work with teaching and learning
teaching and learning

Figure 1.
A three dimension model
of pedagogical leadership
Source: Törnsén and Ärlestig ( 2014)
 Providing prerequisites for teaching and learning Classroom
. Objectives and visions. observations and
. High expectations. supervision
. Organization of the school.
Teachers and students are dependent on the learning environment and context in 859
which they work. Providing prerequisites includes working with both school structure
and culture (Day and Leithwood, 2007; Höög and Johansson, 2011). This comprises
creating good physical working conditions as well as attending to values and attitudes.
Creating a vision as well as interpreting and communicating objectives clarifies and
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

possibly raises expectations of both teachers and students. A challenge is to handle

administrative duties so that these promote student learning. Working purposefully
with leadership distribution and a school’s inner organization also affects teaching
and learning.

Relating school results and qualities to student learning

. Evaluations and assessment.
. Analysis and understanding of results.
. School improvement.
This perspective involves regular evaluation and assessment of the daily work with
students: analyzing the school’s aims and mission, the interactions between teachers
and students in the teaching and learning processes, and active work with evaluations and
result analysis to identify possible discrepancies between expected and actual
outcomes. The findings can, when communicated with teachers, lead to a new
understanding of the teaching and learning process and alter the teacher practice in
classrooms. The interactions facilitate the understanding of teaching as a collective
effort and emphasize the responsibility of the school as an organization. This calls
for collaboration and open communication among all involved. This third
perspective is connected to the school’s work with assessment, evaluation, and
quality which can contribute to sustainability and a more systemic view on teachers’
work and school improvement.
The three perspectives are complementary and indispensable (Törnsén, 2009b).
High-quality pedagogical leadership ensures that the three perspectives inform each
other in order to systematically build sustainability. By utilizing the three perspectives,
the concept of pedagogical leadership is easier to relate to and translate into concrete
action. To be successful, principals need to combine several factors that require
different abilities and knowledge (Day, 2005; Leithwood and Riehl, 2005; Ärlestig,
2007a, b).

Pedagogical leadership – history, policy, and practice

The concept of pedagogical leadership was a political initiative when introduced
in Sweden in the 1940 s and is still regarded a principal’s most important task
(SOU1948:27, 1948). Since then, it has been used in national steering documents and
(since the 1990 s) is to be carried out in a goal- and result-oriented system. Leading
a school requires the principal to act as head and pedagogical leader to ensure that the
national goals in the curriculum are met so that each student achieves the best results
 IJEM possible. All activities should be directed toward academic success but also toward
28,7 social and civic objectives that reflect Sweden’s long history of democracy (Lgr11,
2011). The national curriculum contains objectives based on democratic values, such as
the mandates to respect others, treat all human beings equally, foster mutual
responsibility, and learning, have students’ best interests in mind, work with pupils
influence on and responsibility for their own learning and the learning environment,
860 and to work against bullying and racism.
The main task of Swedish principals is to lead and develop pedagogical activities – i.e.
make changes in teachers’ pedagogical practice and lead and manage organizational
change and school improvement (Lgr11, 2011; Skolverket, 1999). The position of principal
is the only formal one with the task of working as a pedagogical leader in Sweden.
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

The importance of conducting classroom observations as part of pedagogical leadership

is, however, a debated issue in Sweden. There is a need for principals in the twenty-first
century to improve education (Ekholm, 2000), which calls for their involvement in
issues that some teachers see as their autonomous professional arena. Grosin (2003)
describes leadership in successful schools as taking responsibility for the quality of
teaching through making classroom observations, relating teaching practices to
student outcomes, and discussing this with teachers. While Scherp and Scherp (2007)
questions the practice of principals making classroom observations, Ärlestig (2007a)
notes that teachers lack professional feedback and conversations with their principals
about teaching and learning issues.
Authorities and researchers are critical of the awareness of pedagogical leadership
and note that direct involvement in the teaching and learning processes is not highly
prioritized (Törnsén, 2009a, b). Principals do not conduct classroom observations
as a means to support teachers’ pedagogical work and professional development
(Skolverket, 1999; Ärlestig, 2008). Ekholm (2000) show, based on a longitudinal study,
that principals in the compulsory school system, according to teachers, do not undertake
pedagogical initiatives to encourage or emphasize educational work to a high degree.
In summation, teachers in many Swedish schools autonomously manage their own
performances and classroom activities while principals deal with more general issues.
According to recent research and national evaluations, many principals focus on being
pedagogical leaders outside the classroom (Skolinspektionen, 2010, 2012). The work is
devoted to creating a common culture and a good working environment and to monitor
the school through evaluations and quality reports.
One reason why principals do not exercise pedagogical leadership has to do with
teaching being seen as an individual task in which principals should not interfere,
a situation called the “invisible contract” (Berg, 1999, p. 131). Traditional school cultures,
building on teacher autonomy, are receptive to principals being supportive, but they do
not always allow for principals to govern or demand (Ekholm, 2000; Hallerström,
2006), which shows in resistance to the principal’s role as an active pedagogical leader.
The core processes of schooling, teaching, and learning end up being the individual
teacher’s domain. Another issue is prioritizing among administrative tasks, daily
duties, and issues connected to pedagogical leadership, such as leading the teaching
and learning program through classroom observations and working with the
continuous learning of the teachers. A third reason is a lack of knowledge about how to
act as a pedagogical leader, in part because the tradition described above has resulted
in lack of role models. Further, principals are not required to have formal leadership
training prior to being hired, and, interestingly, the Swedish national principal training
program has not emphasized the role of the principal as an instructional leader or
 supervisor, despite a focus on school improvement (Svedberg, 2000). Therefore, Classroom
a university course was developed to enhance knowledge of pedagogical leadership observations and
and classroom observations.
Pedagogical leadership is, as described, a concept used in the Swedish national supervision
curriculum and is related to national objectives, processes, and school results.
When comparing the concept to international concepts, pedagogical leadership is
similar to supervision and instructional, transformational, and democratic leadership 861
(Hallinger and Murphy, 1987; Sinnema and Robinson, 2007; Glickman et al., 2010).
Even if the concepts have different features, they all try to improve the quality of
teaching to enhance student learning.
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

Method
The data builds on material from three groups taking a course to strengthen their
pedagogical leadership. All three groups consisted of experienced principals from five
Swedish municipalities. The principals were all responsible for municipal schools;
however, some were responsible for preschools only, others for preschools and the
early years of compulsory schooling, and others for compulsory or secondary schools
only. Altogether, 51 principals participated in the course, and 44 finished the course.
The 44 participants who finished the course provided us with empirical data
consisting of statements from the participating principals captured during conversations,
observations of principals during the course, examples in their written reports during the
course, and a final written course evaluation. We analyzed the principals’ oral and written
statements from the early stages, during the course, and at the end of the course.
In this paper, we focus on one perspective of the presented pedagogical leadership model:
leading the core process of schooling. We searched for statements that gave examples of
principals learning and changed understanding.
Thematic summaries (Glauser and Strauss, 1967) identify emerging themes
across participant experiences (Miles and Huberman, 1994). We were curious if their
understanding and the themes could be related to our definition and model.
In this paper, we present and discuss the qualitative analysis of the statements
within the themes that emerged in their coursework. Our aim is not to generalize or
evaluate the course but to display if and how principals have changed their
understanding of pedagogical leadership. Realization in the local school and possible
impact on student learning was not measured; however, it was described by and
discussed with the participants.

The course
The main aim of the course in pedagogical leadership was to learn about and discuss
pedagogical leadership and how to enhance teacher capacity through principal
classroom observations and supervision in order to eventually improve student
outcomes. One underlying idea of the course was that by giving close descriptions and
reflecting on how pedagogical leadership is realized in practice, the understanding of
the variety of thoughts and actions that are possible and at times needed in complex
processes could increase. An additional idea was to understand the interrelatedness
of teachers’ knowledge and skills, the teaching and learning program, school results,
and the role of the principal in relation to these components.
The ten-day course was divided into five two-day meetings during the course of one
year. In between the five meetings, the principals made various structured classroom
observations; wrote reflections; constructed self-evaluations in relation to their schools’
 IJEM structure, culture, and leadership; conducted interviews with staff and students; and
28,7 read several books and reports. The course meetings included lectures, analyses of
and reflections on conducted tasks, and seminars to prepare coming activities.
Input through literature and lectures was combined with reflective seminars. The course
provided classroom assignments with different focusses on what to observe as well as
tools, such as different types of protocols. The overall focus was on how teachers and the
862 teaching and learning environment contributed to student learning. The expected
learning outcomes included principals’ work with the schools’ structure and documents
as well as building a culture supportive of continuous improvement of the teaching and
learning processes.
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

Findings
The participation in the courses was decided by the superintendents and arranged by
the districts in cooperation with educators from the university. The principals’
willingness to participate differed, as did their initial understanding of pedagogical
leadership. They were expected to be active during the seminars and do the required
tasks to come prepared to the meetings. Besides reading, the tasks were practical, and
mostly those “the principal ought to do anyway” in the midst of the school year.
The meetings provided opportunities to exchange experiences with other principals
about their daily practice and current challenges. The majority of the principals expressed,
in the evaluations, that they appreciated the new input and having time to discuss
them with their colleagues. Even though almost all participants agreed that the
concept of pedagogical leadership was important in their work, they had difficulties
describing concrete aspects and actions. All admitted that time was limited in terms of
classroom observations and working as pedagogical leaders in relation to teaching
and learning, even if they had a passion for student learning. One of the participants
(who had worked as a principal for three years) noted, “I had an ambition to be the
principal I never had as a teacher; soon enough, I discovered that this was not easy.”
In all groups, the participants, prior to the course, made informal classroom
observations in between other duties. Even if they described themselves as being
involved in everyday activities and problems, their perspectives were from outside the
classroom. Their leadership activities and concerns were mostly related to individual
students and problems brought forward by teachers.

Classroom observations
Between the seminars, classroom observations, and principal-teacher conversations
based on the observations, there were recurring tasks. These included tasks with
a clear focus on specified issues and themes, various observation techniques, and different
kinds of conversations. They were to identify relationships, patterns, and what is taken for
granted in various situations. The findings were analyzed and reflected upon individually
and during the seminars.
Despite being tasked with engaging in classroom observations, about 50 percent of
the participants returning to meeting number two had not done the required classroom
observations. Their explanations varied. The most noted reason was lack of time; some
said they had not understood the task; and one argued that his informal conversations
were as good as the suggested observations. The principals who had made classroom
observations wanted to discuss what they had seen. Listening to their comments
during these conversations, it became obvious to us as researchers that the principals
were neither used to systematizing nor reflecting on their observations.
 The tasks during and between seminars sought to give the participants’ a variety Classroom
of methods and perspectives on pedagogical leadership. During one course meeting, observations and
time was devoted to making matrixes to assess teachers’ work in the classroom.
The construction of the matrixes and the discussions of the different levels of activities supervision
(and the later analysis of the observations using the matrix) were as important as the
observations themselves. The exercise instigated a conversation about creating a matrix
on pedagogical leadership. This was done, and principals were told to assess their own 863
work as pedagogical leaders through the use of a matrix.
The coursework required the principals to have a specific focus during each
observation, which, according to them, made it easier to take the initiative to make
classroom observations in the first place. As the observations became more regular, the
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

teachers gave more positive responses to the observations, and those who had not yet
been observed requested to be observed. It became obvious for many of the principals
that classroom observations, when holding some level of quality, contributed to
learning for both teachers and the principal. One principal stated that it was:
[y] time to tear the “invisible contract” apart and start working with the core processes,
student learning and outcomes, and make these the main processes in my agenda. It is necessary
to move the focus from acting to learning for me and the teachers.
The format of the required observation reduced the aims with the observations and
allowed them to limit the focus on what they observed and reported on. One principal
stated:
Before I started the course I seldom visited classrooms and, if I did, I never focused on
anything special; I just was there. As a consequence, I did not give explicit feedback after
these visits. I have increased my classroom visits by more than 100%. Today, I perform at
least one structured visit a week.
Another principal described his changed focus on what to observe:
I have often visited classrooms, mostly to observe bad behavior among the students or other
problems; today, my focus is on the learning environment and educational challenges.
For many of the participants it became obvious that prepared, focussed observations
yielded different information than random observations without a specific purpose.
At the end of the course, one of the principals concluded, “I will make a plan for my
visits.” Another already had an action plan that she followed:
Prior to making the visit, I inform (teachers) what I am going to look at and that I want to
provide feedback directly after the lesson and ask if there is something I did not understand.
Classroom observations shall have a clear focus even if it varies over time – for example
student learning, pupil influence, and working methods.
To summarize, making classroom observations involved gathering and analyzing
data. When reflecting on the countless things that are possible to observe and the
various ways to do it, the principals became more aware of the importance of having
models, structured forms, and policies to capture qualitative processes. 80 percent of
the participants referred at the end of the course to the importance of having
expressed an aim and having a structured way to work with classroom observations.
It was further noted that one way to raise the quality of classroom observations
is to prepare for and schedule them beforehand. One of the challenges was to
regularly have the same focus and use the same method to be able to make long-term
comparisons.
 IJEM Feedback and confirmation
28,7 A recurring theme during the course was communication, both to give constructive
feedback and to lead conversations on teaching and learning. Prior to a seminar, the
principals had made classroom observations followed by giving individual feedback to
the observed teachers. One of the exercises during this meeting was a role-play that
built on the principals’ own authentic observations of patterns and irregularities in
864 teaching performance as well as their experiences of providing feedback. During the
role-play, the principals practiced their ability to express themselves in explicit terms,
to listen to others, and to give feedback to their colleagues. In addition, they listened
to other principals’ feedback conversations. The role-play provided a model for how
principals could work with their teachers; besides the practices presented, alternative
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

practices were identified. Things brought up for discussion after the role-play concerned
consequences of the practices they utilized and whether the conversations were perceived
by the teachers as a learning experience or as control.
Because the participants came from different school forms, their previous
experiences differed in regard to culture. Preschool principals found it difficult to
provide individual feedback because of a culture in which most decisions are made and
activities conducted in teams. Their challenge was to start processes with more
individual feedback and responsibility and to discuss with individuals if and how
they contributed to the team. In the upper secondary schools, the experience was the
opposite. Teachers were not used talking about their performance with others.
Discovering patterns and sharing experiences in teacher teams contributed to new
insights from the principals about themselves as well as their colleagues. The course
provided principals with opportunities to talk about and share different strategies.
When some of them summarized one of the seminars, they stated the importance
of structuring feedback and providing forums for teachers to discuss methods
(so that they could learn from others) as well and forums for one-on-one conversations
with teachers.
Feedback, according to principals, could have different aims, depending on whether
it is used individually, in conversations with teacher teams, or during staff meetings.
One principal reflected, “The conversations with affirmation and feedback have been
mutually positive, something they (the teachers) have been asking for.”
Initiating and leading conversations about content, didactics, leadership, and
cooperation.
Besides doing classroom observations, the principals were asked to reflect on their
policies, matters of routine, and values in their respective organizations. They analyzed
documents, conducted interviews, and had conversations with students and teachers to
capture their understanding of knowledge and learning. One principal said, “The interviews
with teachers and students were enlightening.” This exercise helped the principals
to act differently in their role as leaders. Instead of acting like a person who already
knows the answer to a question, they posed questions more systematically and
analyzed the answers prior to starting conversations and giving feedback.
During the fifth and final meeting, the principals were challenged to use the
knowledge, understanding, and systematic methods acquired during the course and to
identify the benefits and challenges to expect in their future as pedagogical leaders.
One principal wrote:
When I, during my visits have looked at the same things, I will hopefully identify patterns
which can be of importance to discuss at our teacher meetings. The classroom visits will also
serve as a basis for forthcoming development and discussions of individual salary.
 The concrete tasks in the course gave many of the participants an opportunity to have Classroom
deeper conversations with their teachers. Some principals reported that the teachers observations and
felt that the conversations had started to differ. Principals touched on issues that they
not had been able to address earlier. A parallel process was identified when some of the supervision
participants stated that their superiors do not talk with them about how they conduct
their pedagogical leadership. One participant, a principal for more than 15 years,
stated, “During my time as a principal, my role as pedagogical leader has not been 865
touched on or challenged in conversations with my colleagues or with my superiors
until now.”

Conclusions
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

We cannot take for granted the idea that each individual principal will have knowledge
of how to act as a pedagogical leader. When the three groups of principals started the
course, their individual and collective understanding of pedagogical leadership and
how to act in relation to teacher performance in classrooms and student learning were
mostly vaguely described. Many principals found it difficult to create time in between
their administrative tasks to make classroom observations. Some of them did not
understand the need for classroom observations as pedagogical leaders. Instead, they
saw pedagogical leadership as having more general conversations about schooling and
the school’s mission. A lot of their work consisted of daily administrative tasks and
working with individual students instead of working with didactics, learning
environments, teacher performance, and sustainable school development. Their earlier
attempts at classroom observations showed that the principals more often had acted as
resource teachers instead of pedagogical leaders. When observations are ad hoc, irregular,
and not documented, they do not serve as robust prerequisites for pedagogical dialogue
and feedback.
One aim of the study was to find out if the principals’ new knowledge changed their
role and actions in relation to teachers, teaching, student learning, and results.
The findings naturally point to individual ways for the principals to expand their
knowledge as pedagogical leaders and supervisors. For the majority of the participants,
their examples of how they acted as pedagogical leaders showed that their understanding
of and actions in relation to teaching and learning changed during the course. A complex
environment involves many issues attracting the principals’ attention, and some of them
do not contribute to improved learning for the students. Even if all principals were active
during the courses, some had a hard time changing their behavior. All through the course,
they continued to prioritize the administrative tasks and acted as pedagogical leaders in
the spare time between other duties.
When the themes emerged, it was easy to relate them to the three keywords in the
model related to leading teaching and learning. Many tasks between the seminars
made principals try new methods and take time to do things they usually did not do.
The concept of pedagogical leadership has been generally described in policy documents,
and the authorities and district have not explicitly asked what the principals do as
pedagogical leaders. The course gave many of them opportunities to operationalize what
they often talk about as an ideal.
Pedagogical leadership as shown in the model includes many issues that are
intertwined. Classroom observations are a concrete way to start to work more actively
as a pedagogical leader. The principals’ statements showed that a combination of
knowledge (theory) and practice gave them strategies and started a reflection on when
to use which strategy. Without practical experience, the results had not been so
 IJEM obvious. New and broader theoretical knowledge and experiences contributed to an
28,7 altered understanding of the role of a principal. Methods, analyses, and ideas of how
learning and leadership can be understood are areas that always need to be a part of
a principal’s continuous learning.
One of the challenges for the participants was to operationalize what was said in the
policy documents about pedagogical leadership. The concept was described in general
866 terms and covered everything instead of delineating concrete actions related to what
teachers do in the classrooms. The model and definition presented in the beginning of
the paper have helped us to interpret and operationalize pedagogical leadership.
The data did not reveal much about the other two perspectives in the model due to
the course content but also because classroom observations are concrete and offer
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

a different way of working compared to what principals have experienced in the past.
The next step in our research is to discover more about how objectives and results are
understood and discussed in relation to teachers’ everyday work in the classroom.
It is not enough that the principal simply learns. The learning needs to be transformed
into action. Furthermore, the impact on teachers and their work is affected by the quality
of pedagogical leadership actions. To be productive, teachers must experience principals’
pedagogical leadership as a learning experience instead of them being governed or
scrutinized. Poorly conducted leadership can be counterproductive and perceived as
surveillance instead of a learning opportunity. One of the challenges is to engage teachers
in conversations with other teachers so that individual learning leads to organizational
learning (Larsson and Lövstedt, 2010; Wahlstrom and Seashore Louis, 2008).
Even if there is a national and international emphasis on higher academic outcomes,
the concrete demands are generally weak when it comes to how principals should work
to support and improve teaching and learning. The opportunity to learn together with
colleagues in the same district during the course was appreciated, and many expressed
joy at having time to talk about teaching and learning. To maintain this enthusiasm,
there is a need for external support for and expectations (such as through increased
interest of the superintendent and the district) of how principals can more concretely
conduct their pedagogical leadership.
There is no one “best” pedagogical leadership practice. Pedagogical leadership, due
to its complexity, is a qualitative concept that can include both the novice and the
experienced leader. The challenge for principals is to evolve as pedagogical leaders
based on experiences, new knowledge, the needs of the local school, national goals, and
school results. The model presented earlier, which subdivides pedagogical leadership
into different perspectives (including activities such as structured classroom observations),
can assist in making pedagogical leadership more concrete without limiting the involved
areas. Understanding how leaders affect others requires detailed studies of both principals’
learning and how they act in their daily work. This calls for more empirical studies related
to principals’ pedagogical leadership. Learning is the key – not only for students, but also
for teachers and principals.
References
Ärlestig, H. (2007a), “Multidimensional organizational communication as a vehicle for successful
schools?”, Journal for School Public Relations, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 137-163.
Ärlestig, H. (2007b), “Principals’ communication inside schools – a contribution to school
improvement?”, The Educational Forum, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 262-273.
Ärlestig, H. (2008), Communication between Principals and Teachers in Successful Schools, Umeå
university, Umeå.
 Berg, G. (1999), Skolkultur – nyckeln till skolans utveckling: en bok för skolutvecklare om skolans Classroom
styrning, 2nd ed., Gothia, Stockholm.
observations and
Day, C. (2005), “Principals who sustain success: making a difference in schools in challenging
circumstances”, International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 273-290. supervision
Day, C. and Leithwood, K. (Eds) (2007), Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change. An
International Perspective, Springer, Dordrecht.
Ekholm, M. (2000), Forskning om rektor: en forskningsöversikt (Research on School Leadership: 867
A Research Overview), Statens skolverk, Liber distribution, Stockholm.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research, Aldine, Chicago.
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

Glickman, C.D., Gordon, S.P. and Ross-Gordon, J.M. (2010), Supervision of Instruction:
A Developmental Approach, 8th ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Grosin, L. (2003), “Forskning om framgångsrika skolor för skolutveckling”, in Berg, G.
and Scherp, H.-Å. (Eds) Skolutvecklingens många ansikten, Skolverket, Stockholm,
pp. 137-177.
Hallerström, H. (2006), Rektorers normer i ledarskapet för skolutveckling, Sociologiska
institutionen, Lunds universitet, Lund.
Hallinger, P. (2003), “Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 329-351.
Hallinger, P. and Murphy, J. (1987), “Assessing and developing principal instructional
leadership”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 54-61.
Höög, J. and Johansson, O. (Eds) (2011), Struktur, kultur, ledarskap- förutsättningar för
framgångsrika skolor? (Structure, Culture, Leadership- Prerequisites for Successful Schools),
Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Johansson, O. and Zachrisson, E. (2008), “Educational leadership for democracy and social
justice”, in Huber, S. (Ed.), School Leadership – International Perspectives, Peter Lang
Publishing Group, Bern, pp. 39-56.
Larsson, P. and Lövstedt, J. (2010), Strategier och förändringsmyter: ett organisationsperspektiv på
skolutveckling och lärares arbete, Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Leithwood, K. and Riehl, C. (2005), “What we know about successful school leadership”,
in Firestone, W. and Riehl, C. (Eds), A New Agenda: Directions for Research on Educational
Leadership, Teachers College Press New York, NY, pp. 22-47.
Lgr11 (2011), Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2011, Fritzes, Stockholm.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook,
2. ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. and Ecob, R. (1988), School Matters. The Junior
Years, Open Books, Wells, Somerset.
Sinnema, C.L. and Robinson, V.M.J. (2007) “The leadership of teaching and learning: implications
for teacher evaluation”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 319-343.
Scherp, H.-Å. and Scherp, G.-B. (2007), Lärande och skolutveckling, ledarskap för skolutveckling
och meningsskapande, Karlstad university studies, Karlstad.
Skolinspektionen (2010), Rektors ledarskap. En granskning av hur rektor leder skolans arbete mot
ökad måluppfyllelse, Stockholm, Skoinspektionen.
Skolinspektionen (2012), Rektors ledarskap, Stockholm, Skoinspektionen.
Skolverket (1999), Nationella kvalitetsgranskningar 1998: Rektor som styrfunktion i en
decentraliserad skolorganisation y (National Quality Review 1998: Principal Leadership
in a Decentralized School Organisation), Statens skolverk: Liber distribution, Stockholm.
 IJEM SOU 1948:27 (1948), 1946 års skolkommissions betänkande med förslag till riktlinjer för det
svenska skolväsendets utveckling, Ecklesiastikdepartementet, Stockholm.
28,7
Svedberg, L. (2000), Rektorsrollen: om skolledarskapets gestaltning [The Principal Role: About
Schoolleadership Formation, in Swedish], HLS, Stockholm.
Törnsén, M. (2009a), “Principal leadership, national responsibilities and successful school
outcomes (Article)”, International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth
868 Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 37-52.
Törnsén, M. (2009b), Successful Principal Leadership: Prerequisites, Processes and Outcomes,
Pedagogiska institutionen, Umeå universitet, Umeå.
Törnsén, M. and Ärlestig, H. (2014), “Pedagogiskt ledarskap, mål, process, resultat (Pedagogical
leadership, goals, processes, results, in Swedish)”, in Höög, J. and Johansson, O. (Eds),
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 10:18 19 September 2017 (PT)

Förutsättningar för Framgångsrika Skolor, Struktur, Kultur, Ledarskap, Studentlitteratur,

Lund, pp. 77-100.
Wahlstrom, K. and Seashore Louis, K. (2008), “How teachers experience principal leadership: the
roles of professional community, trust, efficacy and shared responsibility”, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 458-495.

Further reading
Hattie, J. (2009), Visible Learning: A Synthesis of 800 Meta-Analyses Relation to Achievement,
Routledge, London.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Corresponding author
Dr Helene Ärlestig can be contacted at: helene.arlestig@pol.umu.se

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints