ArticlePDF Available

School Leadership in German Speaking Countries with an emphasis on Austria: A Re-Vision.

  • Institut des Bundes für Qualitätssicherung im österreichischen Schulwesen

Abstract and Figures

The role of principals has undergone a number of changes, including new requirements, roles, skills and challenges. Research on school leadership has also been subject to various changes over the course of time. This paper presents an overview of models for school leadership research and discusses the relative concepts of leadership duties and activities in schools. Starting with a description of three main models, which differ in terms of the conceptual approaches of the players involved and start at different points in time, a new concept of school leadership is presented. School leadership 4.0 includes a Focus on values and meaning, but also aims to improve efficacy and quality.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Edizione: Provincia autonoma di Trento RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 7, n. 2 - December 2015 | 65
School leadership in German speaking
countries with an emphasis on Austria:
a re-vision
Christian Wiesner, Ann Cathrice George, David Kemethofer
Federal Institute for Educational Research,
Innovation & Development of the Austrian School System (BIFIE)
[pp. 65-90]
To get news on or to share views on this article, the fi rst author can be contacted to the following address: BIFIE -
Alpenstraße 121 - 5020 Salzburg (Austria) - Tel.: +43-662-620088 - e-mail: c.wiesner@bifi
Il ruolo dei dirigenti scolastici ha subito una serie di modifi che tra cui nuovi requisiti in ingresso, nuove
funzioni, nuove competenze e sfi de. La ricerca sulla leadership in contesti scolastici è stata oggetto di
vari cambiamenti nel corso del tempo. Questo articolo presenta una panoramica sui paradigmi di ricerca
sulla leadership scolastica e discute i relativi concetti di compiti di leadership e delle attività di leadership
nelle scuole. Partendo da una descrizione di tre paradigmi principali che si diff erenziano per gli approcci
concettuali degli attori coinvolti e partono da diversi periodi di tempo, una nuova concezione di dirigenza
scolastica viene presentata. leadership scolastica 4.0 include un focus su valori e sui signifi cati, ma mira
anche a migliorare l’effi cacia e la qualità del fare scuola, anche da un’ottica di leadership.
Parole chiave: ricerca sulla leadership scolastica, leadership scolastica 4.0, concetti di leadership sco-
lastica, stili di leadership, futuri sviluppi nella ricerca sulla leadership scolastica.
The role of principals has undergone a number of changes, including new requirements, roles, skills and
challenges. Research on school leadership has also been subject to various changes over the course
of time. This paper presents an overview of models for school leadership research and discusses the
relative concepts of leadership duties and activities in schools. Starting with a description of three main
models, which diff er in terms of the conceptual approaches of the players involved and start at diff erent
points in time, a new concept of school leadership is presented. School leadership 4.0 includes a focus
on values and meaning, but also aims to improve effi cacy and quality.
Key words: school leadership research, school leadership 4.0, concepts of school leadership, leadership
styles, future developments in school leadership research.
Michael Schratz
University of Innsbruck
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 65 01/03/16 11:24
66 | Six-monthly Journal on Learning. Research and Innovation in Education
Veränderungen im Bildungssystem fü hrten in den vergangenen Jahren und Jahrzehnten zu neuen
Anforderungen, Funktionen, Kompetenzen und Herausforderungen an die Rolle der Schulleitung. Die
Schulleitungsforschung selbst ist ebenfalls Subjekt des Wandels im Bildungswesen. Dieser Artikel prä-
sentiert einen Überblick der unterschiedlichen Strömungen der Schulleitungsforschung und diskutiert
deren Konzepte der jeweils gegebenen Aufgaben und Tätigkeiten von Schulleitungen. Ausgehend von
einer Beschreibung von drei zentralen Hauptströmungen, welche sich hinsichtlich des konzeptionellen
Ansatzes der beteiligten Akteure und der Genese zu unterschiedlichen Zeitpunkten wird ein neuer Zugang
zur Schulleitung abgeleitet. Schulleitung 4.0 bedeutet einen Fokus auf Werte und Sinn und inkludiert
zugleich auf verbesserte Eff ektivität und Qualität der Schule.
Schlüsselwörter: Schulleitungsforschung, Schulleitung 4.0, Schulleitungskonzepte, Führungsstile,
Künftige Entwicklungen der Schulleitungsforschung.
1. Introduction
Since the mid-1990s education debates
and reforms in Austria have been characterised
by the reorientation of school governance to-
wards a result-oriented governance (Altrichter
& Maag Merki, 2010). The various aspects of
the “new” governance approaches include
such core concepts as “school autonomy”
“school quality”, “leadership responsibility”,
“eff ectiveness and effi ciency”, “accountability”,
“comparative education research” and “perfor-
mance standards”. However, current research
goes beyond the mere eff ort to increase or
improve teaching and school quality; it also
includes issues such as the development and
implementation of collaborative partnerships,
the expansion of school cultures as well as
socially oriented leadership. Brauckmann,
Hanfstingl & Schwarz (2015) identifi ed four
tasks for educational leadership in the con-
text of “new” governance approaches: the
administrative and organisational task (e.g.,
internal school budgeting for teaching and
learning resources), personnel management
and organisational development (i.e. devel-
opment of human resources), teaching and
pedagogical innovation (e.g., variations in the
teaching organisation and execution) and the
opening of the school through collaborations
and networks (see also Buchen & Rolff , 2013).
This interplay of legal specifi cations and
the (recommended) educational design of
a school places complex (and new) de-
mands on educational leadership and thus
on principals. The importance of principals
and educational leadership has now, driven
by international studies (e.g., Huber, 2008;
Huber, 2011), also been recognised in Ger-
man-speaking countries: empirical evidence
from school eff ectiveness research has led
to the conclusion that the quality of schools
is determined to a great extent by principals’
behaviour (see also Bonsen, 2010; Brauck-
mann & Schwarz, 2015). At the same time,
the principal, together with curricula and
instruction, counts among the three most
important factors for improving student per-
formance on which infl uence can be exerted
within the school (see also Leithwood & Riehl,
2005; Hallinger & Hecker, 1998). Despite
this well-known impact of principals towards
school quality improvement, Austrian school
research is not strongly developed in the fi eld
of school leadership research and therefore
has little eff ect on policy and practice.
As in Austria, there is also no account
at international level of the development
processes leading to a successful, eff ective
school, nor of successful school principals
(Huber 2005; Reynolds 1995). The following
paper provides an overview of the paradigms
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 66 01/03/16 11:24
RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 7, n. 2 - December 2015 | 67
of Austrian school leadership research. It
describes how issues and objectives have
changed over time, the diff erent method-
ological approaches used in the research,
and the various stakeholders involved in
the research interests. To this end, school
leadership research is divided into distinctive
paradigms (cf. Section 2). Current insights or
ndings from all of these trends are described
(cf. Sections 2.2–2.4). The paper ends with a
discussion on the eff ects and interplay of the
various paradigms, as well as the establish-
ment of a new perspective in research and
practice (cf. Section 3).
2. School Leadership Research
School leadership research has been sub-
ject to various changes in the course of time.
It is divided into diff erent paradigms, which
are mainly formed by diff erent political topics
(Table 1, column “Governance”), diff erent po-
sitions of school leaders and learners (Table
1, column “Headship” and “Learner”) and
into actors, which persue diff erent concepts
(i.e. directions of thinking; Table 1, column
“Concept”). At fi rst glance, these paradigms
and concepts seem hardly feasible. Addi-
tionaly, it should be noted that the actors
within each paradigm (trends) have diff ering
thoughts regarding an overall system, which
impacts their scientifi c activities to a large
extent. (Bonsen et al., 2008; Wiesner, 2010;
Scharmer & Käufer, 2013; Fullan, 2014) In
Table 1 and the following sections, the diff er-
ent paradigms are presented independently
of one another, although they do not appear
isolated in practice.
In this paper, school leadership research
is regarded as a stream order in the sense
that (small) streamlets and (larger) streams
meet and then combine to form currents
(paradigms), to ultimately form sections of
a confl uent river for a certain period of time
(see Fig. 1). Currently, the diff erent paradigms
appear side by side (competing paradigm),
as complementary paradigms (integrative
paradigm) or merged (fusion paradigm), or
ow together as interrelationships, thereby
forming possible future paradigms (transfor-
mative paradigm).
2.1 Current Situation
For a long time, the principal’s role in
Austria was characterised by the hierarchical
positioning within a centrally governed school
system. The role of the principal hinged largely
on the school administration’s governance
concept at the time, which was marked by
the school as a subordinate administrative
authority. The school leader, as a “primus inter
pares”, served to implement offi cial regula-
Tab. 1 - Confl uence model of school leadership research (based on Wiesner, 2010, Scharmer & Käufer,
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 67 01/03/16 11:24
68 | Six-monthly Journal on Learning. Research and Innovation in Education
tions as smoothly as possible (Schratz, 1998).
The “eligibility criteria” for this prominent posi-
tion were usually advanced seniority, a good
track record within the system, and social
integrity. Development took place through
consultations with superiors. This form of
school leadership in Austria still refl ected a
political culture (Schratz, 2012) that harked
back to the Habsburg monarchy, and which
was organised extremely hierarchically and
characterised by pervasive formalism.
2.2 School Leadership 1.0
By the end of the 1970s, the epistemic
interest of school research focused on im-
proving the quality of lessons and schools
as an educational action- and organisational
unit (Fend, 1987; Steff ens, 2009). The indi-
vidual school and its quality were seen as the
“motor/driver” of school development, which
led to an understanding of school reform in
the sense of reducing the centralised exter-
nal management of the education system in
favour of a conscious inner quality improve-
ment of the individual school. Thanks in par-
ticular to the “Konstanzer Schulforschung”
(School Research of Constance) and the
“Arbeitskreit Qualität von Schule” (Study
Group for School Quality), the spotlight was
put on the comparison of individual schools,
as well as on the question of the school’s
quality optimisation as an “educational unit”
(Fend, 1987; Steff ens & Bargel, 1987; Posch,
1999; Steff ens, 2009). Within this paradigm,
the word “quality” means no more than “the
preference for something superior, as op-
posed to something inferior” (Fend, 1999,
p. 138) or, pragmatically formulated, “quality
is everything that can be improved upon”
(Posch, 1999, p. 199). Also, the principal’s
leadership style (“instruction-driven”) to op-
timise quality as well as applied school re-
search (“lessons”) play a key role in paradigm
1.0 (see also Holtappels & Rolff , 2004). Thus,
in 1.0 “quality for all was to be the answer”
(Fullan 2014, p. 23).
The following subsections explain the
main pillars of school leadership 1.0. It
should be emphasised that the research on
1.0 was initially normative and theory-driven,
but later also underpinned through empirical
evidence (Huber, 2005; Maag Merki & Wer-
ner, 2013).
2.1.1 Optimisation of school quality
through leadership styles
In order to be able to explain educational
leadership behaviour (rated as highly infl uen-
tial) within this school quality research, the
actions of leaders were arranged in leadership
styles (“authority-centred” personality styles)
(see Table 2). Based on these diff erent styles,
school quality research has been discussing
and investigating the types of educational
leadership in reference to a more “hierar-
chical” eff ect of school leadership since the
mid-1980s (see also Scharmer & Käufer,
2013, p. 135). The leadership styles describe
seemingly “stable” dimensions of super- and
subordination, involvement and participation,
and how those are leading and those being
led make decisions (Fischer & Schratz, 1999).
In addition to the traditional leadership styles,
Fig. 1 - Illustration of paradigms in the confl uence model Current Situation.
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 68 01/03/16 11:24
RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 7, n. 2 - December 2015 | 69
a number of variations emerged in the past
few decades that can be regarded as further
developments of the traditional styles (shared
leadership, system leadership, confl uent lead-
ership, collaborative leadership, situational
leadership, among others).
Current research fi ndings on the improve-
ment of quality through the eff ect of leadership
styles show that transformational leadership
tends to lead to high job satisfaction and
motivation (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 760).
Instructional leadership, on the other hand,
seems to have a generally positive eff ect
on students’ learning outcomes (Robinson
et al., 2008; Hattie, 2009). Pietsch (2014)
summarises the connections with student
performance in international studies as fol-
lows: instructional leadership has a greater
chance of improved learning outcomes than
transformational leadership.Transformational
leadership increases the chance of above-av-
erage learning outcomes by about 24 percent
while instructional leadership increases it by
about 118 percent.
All the same, the majority of academic
ndings conclude that a leadership style does
not appear in an isolated form in practice,
but rather that principals actively use a com-
bination of diff erent leadership styles (e.g.,
Brauckmann & Pashiardis, 2011; Harazd &
van Ophuysen, 2011; Judge and Piccolo,
2004; Warwas, 2012). This results in leade-
ship styles that are more fi ne grained that the
traditional ones, for example moral leadership,
constructivist leadership, servant leadership,
cultural leadership, distributed leadership,
shared leadership, system leadership, reso-
nant leadership, confl uent leadership, and pri-
mal leadership. Thus, nowadays “leadership
by adjective is a growth industry” (Leithwood,
Day, Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 2006,
p. 7).
Tab. 2 - Diff erent leadership concepts in the context of schools.
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 69 01/03/16 11:24
70 | Six-monthly Journal on Learning. Research and Innovation in Education
2.2.2 Leadership responsibility for quality
Based on organisational development the-
ories (e.g., Dubs, 1994; Scharmer & Käufer,
2013), emphasis is put on the principal’s lead-
ership and personnel responsibility as central
elements. In Austria the decentralisation of the
education system that began in 1993/94 and
the associated autonomy movement (Altrich-
ter & Posch, 1996; Rauscher, 1999; Schratz
& Hartmann, 2009) led to the fi rst disputes
regarding principals’ responsibility in the micro
area of the school location (Fischer & Schratz,
1993). Finally, the amendment of Sec. 56 of
the School Education Act (Schulunterrichts-
gesetz; 2011) and Sec. 18 of the Federal
School Supervision Act (Bundes-Schulauf-
sichtsgesetz; 2012) and the introduction of a
national quality framework have defi ned more
precisely and expanded principals’ tasks on
school quality management. The model of the
responsibilities for the quality in the school by
Lohmann and Minderop (2009, p. 74), how-
ever, relieves principals of some responsibility
by, for instance, passing the responsibility for
the quality of teaching and outcome on to the
teachers (see Fig. 2).
Well-founded and current (though not em-
pirically substantiated) data of the school lead-
ership research 1.0 relating to a responsible
understanding of the profession of principals
can be found in Fischer and Schratz (1993),
Rauch and Biott (2003) and Lohmann and
Minderop (2009).
2.2.3 Personnel development
as a leadership instrument
Shaping schools using personnel devel-
opment is deemed a crucial leadership tool
for quality assurance (1.0). Although theories
of organisation development have been in-
uencing school quality research since the
1960s (Holtappels & Rolff , 2004), the use of
personnel management strategies in everyday
school life has been regarded critically to date
(Dubs, 2005). The reasons mentioned for this
are bureaucracy, constraints in the schools’
administration and feared restrictions of
freedom. Ender and Strittmatter (2001) are
also of the opinion that assigning personnel
management tasks to principals is prob-
lematic, owing to their lack of qualifi cation,
and that these tasks fi nd little acceptance
among the staff due to the principals’ role as
Fig. 2: Distribution of responsibilities in schools (Source: Lohmann and Minderop, 2009, p. 74).
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 70 01/03/16 11:24
RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 7, n. 2 - December 2015 | 71
a “promoter” and “assessor” of professional
performance. Dubs (2005) believes that many
of the objections addressed could be reduced
if personnel management at schools were not
introduced selectively, but rather planned as
a comprehensive and long-term concept of a
school development strategy (Buchen & Rolff ,
2013). Recently, Brauckmann and Schwarz
(2015) showed that organisation and person-
nel management are still seen as important
leadership tasks.
2.2.4 Summary of School Leadership 1.0
The existing theoretical models in para-
digm 1.0 should be classifi ed as highly com-
plex. School quality research and applied
school research are carried out between
the researcher and the person researched
(Huber, 2005, p. 49), upon which the the-
oretical approaches, taking their practical
implementation into account, are modelled.
The research results are increasingly being
recorded in case studies as particularities.
This makes it diffi cult to derive empirical
foundations and thus possibly achieve a
generalisation of the concepts.
The prioritised stabilisation and optimi-
sation of educational quality (as well as the
degree of “input orientation”) unavoidably
lead to the question of how to improve “qual-
ity” and, even more fundamentally, how to
defi ne it. This inevitably leads to a demand
for identifi cation of the criteria/indicators of
a “good school” (see also Fend, 1987, p. 63;
Altrichter, Gußner, Maderthaner & Schlosser,
2009). Further, pure quality assurance bears
the risk of defending optimisation strategies,
because the focus is on “more of the same”
or “improve the same”.
Educational quality under 1.0 requires
great responsibility for stability (see Leader-
ship Styles) in the system, through which ed-
ucational leadership is fundamentally defi ned
by quality assurance processes for making
improvements. Educational leadership in the
1.0 paradigm can thus be seen as the stable
implementation of a quality-generating leader-
ship style (“authority-centred”) with particular
regard given to leadership responsibility.
2.3 Linking 1.0 to 2.0: Findings from
international comparative
school leadership research
Following ideas of paradigm 1.0, the
first large-scale international comparative
study to record working conditions and work
environments of principals (and teachers),
the so-called Teaching and Learning Inter-
national Survey (TALIS; OCED, 2009; 2014),
was carried out in 2008. The study did not
make any objective assessments, but rather
gathered and empirically evaluated principals’
self-evaluation reports.
Based on the principals’ responses, fi ve
management indices were methodically de-
veloped and ascribed to the instructional and
administrative leadership style (see Fig. 5).
The TALIS survey is creating a connection to
paradigm 2.0.
Lastly, the participating education systems
were plotted on a coordinate system with the
axes representing the two leadership styles
(see Fig. 5). The two leadership styles can be
found in all countries. No correlation could be
found between leadership style and school
autonomy. The Austria-specifi c results show
that the low value in the instructional leader-
ship style can be explained by the answers
to the questions about “Setting goals” in the
management index (Schmich & Breit, 2009).
This was explained in 2008 by the prevailing
lack of mandatory control instruments, qual-
ity management systems and standardised
feedback (Schratz, 2009a).
Topical issues such as satisfaction,
school autonomy and vocational and further
training were added to the 2013 TALIS sur-
vey, in which Austria no longer participated
(OECD, 2014). The surveyed principals place
particular emphasis on the need for the
expansion of offi cial vocational training pro-
grammes in preparation for the headteacher
post and the creation of opportunities for
further training.
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 71 01/03/16 11:24
72 | Six-monthly Journal on Learning. Research and Innovation in Education
Fig. 4 - Countries participating in TALIS according to instructional and administrative management styles
(from OECD, 2009, p. 197). Blue dots represent countries with lower school autonomy and grey dots
countries with higher school autonomy.
Fig. 3 - Connection between fi ve management indices and two leadership styles in TALIS 2008 (source:
OECD, 2009, p. 195).
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 72 01/03/16 11:24
RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 7, n. 2 - December 2015 | 73
2.4 School Leadership 2.0
Austria’s unsatisfactory performance in
international school performance surveys
such as PISA and TIMSS triggered school
leadership research 2.0 in the early 1990s.
The focus of school research shifted to the
school system as a whole (“system monitor-
ing”), while the individual school as well as
instruction and applied school research took
a back seat (Holtappels & Rolff , 2004; Krainer,
2007). Ascertainment and improvement of
student performance (“output orientation”),
competition (“rankings”), accountability of
schools and possible consequences (“school
failure”) as well as “new” approaches (“school
governance”) of a data-based governance
(Brauckmann & Schwarz, 2015; Demski &
Racherbäumer, 2015) gained prominence
in an evaluation-based, performance-based
climate. In order to achieve excellent stu-
dent performance, there has been a call for
“outstanding school leadership behaviour”
(Levine & Lezotte, 1990), “reliable school
leadership behaviour” (Teddlie & Stringfi eld,
1993), “distinct school leadership behaviour”
(Creemers, 1994) or “professional school
leadership behaviour” (Sammons et al., 1995)
right from the start of paradigm 2.0 (see also
Huber, 2005); however, less specifi c and less
sophisticated are in the detailed descriptions
of the leadership styles (in 1.0).
Empirical fi ndings (“test-driven”) form the
basis of educational policy decisions (e.g.,
Steff ens, 2009), instead of the increasingly
theory-driven assumptions about eff ects on
school quality in paradigm 1.0. The following
paragraphs describe important aspects of
school leadership 2.0.
2.4.1 Eff ectiveness research
as the primary focus
International research1 has concluded that
the actions of principals have a mainly indirect
eff ect on students’ learning processes via their
impact on internal school processes. Studies
from the Anglophone world show some small
(Scheerens, 2012), but also moderate impact
(Marzano et al., 2005) of school leaders. Also,
Hattie (2009) states that there is a moderate
average connection between the actions of
principals and student performance. The ef-
fect of principals determined by Hattie (2009)
can be seen as greater than, for example,
that of homework, but smaller than the eff ect
of active learning time. Also, Pietsch (2014)
stresses the importance of an eff ective school
principal. Given this, Pietsch maintains, Ger-
many could rank among the top four in the
PISA study and reduce the percentage of
at-risk students by up to 18 percent.
Hallinger (2011) provides a detailed model
to describe the impact of school leaders (see
Fig. 3). Principals operate in an open system
that also includes socio-cultural and institu-
tional aspects. Their leadership behaviour
is infl uenced by individual beliefs, attitudes
and values (Altrichter et al., 2012), as well as
by knowledge and experience. Student out-
comes are aff ected by means of intermediary
processes. The arrows in both directions also
mark the interrelationship between leadership
behaviour and school operation.
2.4.2 Factors of eff ective leadership
In an explorative analysis, Bonsen (2013)
seeks to identify the characteristics of “good
principals”, i.e. principals at schools with a
high school quality. He found goal-related
leadership, willingness to innovate and organ-
isational skills. Also searching for characteris-
tics of good school leaders, Lohmann (2013)
analyses the connection between school
leadership action (2.0) and the quality of
school and teaching (1.0). He identifi ed three
areas factors for the successful development
of schools and teaching. These factors aff ect
one another systemically, albeit to varying
degrees (see Fig. 4).
1 It must be stressed that the international fi ndings are not directly applicable to the Austrian education system
(see also Rolff , 2014).
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 73 01/03/16 11:24
74 | Six-monthly Journal on Learning. Research and Innovation in Education
Fig. 6 - Impact of successful school leadership (based on Lohmann, 2013, p. 131)2.
2 Lohmann (2013, p. 129) divides the degree of impact into six categories ranging from “imperceptible” to “ex-
tremely high”. The ratio in which these complexes relate to each other is used to calculate their eff ectiveness.
Fig. 5 - Model of principals’ impact according to Hallinger (2011, p. 127).
Hence, a principal is deemed eff ective if
he/she keeps an eye on learning development
and learning success, assumes responsibility,
strengthens professional cooperation with
and within the staff and creates the neces-
sary structures for this purpose. He/she must
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 74 01/03/16 11:24
RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 7, n. 2 - December 2015 | 75
utilise the existing possibilities for further de-
velopment and make use of (evaluation) data
to this end (Lohmann, 2013).
2.4.3 Implementation
of “new” governance approaches
An important aspect in school leadership
research 2.0 is locating and implementing
“new” governance approaches and reforms
as well as adapting them locally (see also the
concept of recontextualisation in Fend, 2006),
which is why principals occupy a special key
position in the implementation of reforms
(see also Bonsen, 2010; Huber, 2008). The
acceptance and the subjective evaluation of
governance strategies appear crucial for new
reforms to become eff ective. Altrichter and
Kemethofer (2015) examined the evaluation
of diff erent strategies for the development of
quality in the Austrian school system. Principals
regard “resource-related strategies” (i.e. better
materials, smaller classes) and the “qualifi ca-
tion of staff ” (i.e. better teacher training, more
practical experience for new/young teachers)
as the most suitable strategies. While great
hope is attached to traditional input-oriented
governance approaches, the core elements of
“evidence-based governance” (i.e. educational
standards surveys and results of international
comparative studies) and instruments for “in-
dividual school-based quality development”
(i.e. school programmes and target agree-
ments) seem to be less well received. It is
evident during the period from 2011 to 2014
that sympathy towards evidence-based gov-
ernance processes is currently lacking, while
that towards individual school-based quality
development measures is on the rise.
2.4.4 Summary of School Leadership 2.0
In paradigm 2.0, both empirical me-
ta-studies and case studies show an indirect
infl uence of principals on the eff ectiveness
and efficiency of schools. The impact of
diff erent leadership types, degrees of auton-
omy and “new” governance approaches on
student outcome and also on school quality
is examined in an empirically “unbiased” way.
Essentially, paradigm 2.0 is not theo-
ry-driven but generates its own empirical
theories or models. It is crucial to note that
the research is usually conducted without
involving the people on the ground (princi-
pal, teachers and so forth) (Huber, 2005, p.
49). Like paradigm 1.0, the eff ectiveness of
School Leadership 2.0 requires a high degree
of responsibility for stability within the system
in order to embed processes eff ectively and
sustainably. At the same time, “new” manage-
ment is at odds with long-term eff ectiveness,
because “new” approaches initially require
changes to the system. School Leadership
2.0 can be described as “transactional” and
thus as a data-based expertise for creating
effi ciency and eff ectiveness.
2.5 School Leadership 3.0
School Leadership Research 3.0 is char-
acterised by school development, empower-
ment and changes in patterns (Kruse, 2004).
The individual school again takes centre
stage, but this time in conjunction with the
systemic perspective. In this paradigm, the
concept of development implies a norma-
tive-supportive vision or intentional direction
(“learning-driven”) in which the school is
to develop. Hopkins et al. (1994) already
emphasised that school development is by
no means a change for change’s sake, but
should be subject to meaningful objectives
(see also Huber, 2005; Scharmer & Kräuter,
2013; Schratz, 2009b). Development can be
understood as an empathic term because
development suggests the growth and ma-
turing of people, actors, but also of collectives
(Greiner, 2008).
Although the methods in paradigm 1.0
must initially be categorised as too “soft”,
they nevertheless remain an important fi rst
step for optimisation processes. The meth-
ods of external evaluation and comparative
performance surveys of paradigm 2.0, on
the other hand, can undoubtedly be deemed
“harder”. However, they do not provide the
necessary “practical” information as to which
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 75 01/03/16 11:24
76 | Six-monthly Journal on Learning. Research and Innovation in Education
interventions in which form would contribute
to developments or shifts in behaviour and
thinking patterns (“renewal”). Summative eval-
uations do not necessarily promote desirable
pedagogical change in the fi rst instance, as
defi nitively implemented in paradigm 2.0, for
which reason an additional perspective seems
necessary (cf. Huber, 2005). This is precisely
the concept of paradigm 3.0.
The competence orientation of educational
standards in the form of comprehensive feed-
back for individual schools (individual data for
the school inspectorate, principal, teachers),
for instance, constitutes, within 3.0, the in-
put-oriented counterpart (“development”) to
the output-oriented comparative performance
surveys of the system monitoring (2.0), such
as PISA and TIMSS (Steff ens, 2009, p. 45)3.
Principals’ behaviour is no longer interpreted
as “stable” leadership; rather, the focus is
again on dynamic skills for leadership style and
behaviour. The following sections describe the
main characteristics of paradigm 3.0.
2.5.1 Evaluative attitude, assumption
of responsibility and self-effi cacy
Schober et al. (2012) described, based on
Bonsen and Bos (2010) and Murphy (1990),
specifi c qualifi cations and skills of principals
(and teachers) that are needed to support
results-oriented (2.0) quality development
(1.0, 3.0). In also, an evaluative attitude,
the willingness to assume responsibility
and self-effi cacy/self-worth are defi ned as
overarching determinants and fundamental
attitudes. On this basis, they developed six
areas of expertise (see Table 3).
2.5.2 National quality framework
for school development
The principal’s evaluative attitude and
leadership responsibility described (see also
Radnitzky, 2015, p. 10; Schubert, 2015, p. 21)
have a determining infl uence on the “national
quality framework” created in 2011, which is
the legal basis that calls for quality manage-
ment as a school development process at all
Tab. 3 - Competencies of principals for result-oriented quality development of school (source: Schober
et al., 2012, p.122).
3 The education standards assessments must be analysed in such a way as to provide a basis for quality devel-
opment measures to be implemented on a national, regional and individual school level (Federal Law Gazette II
No 1/2009, Sec 4 Para 4).
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 76 01/03/16 11:24
RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 7, n. 2 - December 2015 | 77
levels of the Austrian education system (see
also Sec. 18 Federal School Supervision Act).
The basic idea behind this national quality
framework, a systematic and periodic exam-
ination of school quality (1.0) and development
(3.0), taking into account empirical data (2.0),
is based on the principle of “Development
Plan - Result and Target Agreement Dialogue
- Evaluation”. The concept is implemented
both bottom up (individual school formulates its
needs) as well as top down (framework target
value). The instrument for the implementation
of the national quality framework (SQA4) is
tendentially positively perceived and seen as
helpful and useful (Kemethofer & Altrichter,
2015). Grißmann and Kranebitter (2015, p. 58)
note in this regard that a real spirit of optimism
has replaced the initial scepticism, as SQA
makes school development processes binding
and visible. Qualifi ed individuals are placed at
the schools’ disposal to assist with the devel-
opment processes. A current nationwide eval-
uation (Svecnik & Skliris, 2015) shows that the
goals and the philosophy of SQA seem to have
arrived at the schools and that principals see
important moderator variables (e.g., feedback,
dialogic guidance, development plan, result
and target agreement dialogue) as benefi cial
for further implementation of the project.
2.5.3 Utilisation of data-based feedback
for school development
The model presented by Wiesner, Schrein-
er and Breit Breit (2015) as a further devel-
opment of the cycle model of Helmke (2004)
and Hosenfeld and Groß Ophoff (2007) sees
the competencies of principals in handling
empirical evidence, as well as in generating
knowledge for the implementation of da-
ta-based feedback in concrete pedagogical
actions, as a major factor for the utilisation of
the results of the Austrian education stand-
ard review (Huber, 2008, p. 100; Thiel, 2014).
To this end, principals require comprehen-
sive leadership skills for the implementation
of optimisation, development and renewal
processes as well as pronounced “social”
value orientations and cooperation skills (cf.
Tab. 4). According to Wiesner, Schreiner and
Breit (2015), data-based feedback alone does
not automatic ally result in internal processes
of change (see also Kohler & Schrader, 2004;
Rolff , 2002). Also, actions carried out too
quickly after the reception phase and without
prior in-depth refl ection processes seem to
have a counterproductive eff ect in schools
(Thonke & Lücken, 2015).
2.5.4 Comprehensive competence
framework for coping with
the complexity of the tasks
In the light of the newly created quality
initiatives and in view of principals’ profes-
sional qualifi cation measures, comprehensive
competence models and a competence ori-
entation to describe the complexity of tasks
for principals appear necessary in order to
successfully shape schools in the future (see
also Rolff & Schratz, 2013). Robinson and
colleagues. (2008) and Hattie (2009) point
out that diff erent situations and contexts
also require diff erent actions to be taken by
principals. The transition from the qualifi ca-
tion to the competence discussion resulted
in a shift in perspective from the institution
and leadership styles (1.0) to the experts
(2.0), through to the leading formators (3.0).
Principals shape the performance of others
by impacting the values, motivation, oppor-
tunities for personal development, optimisa-
tion opportunities, evaluative attitudes and
working conditions of teachers, who in turn
shape the teaching and learning processes
(Hartmann & Schratz, 2010, p. 31). In a
meta-study, Marzano and colleagues (2005)
formulated 21 practice-relevant skills of ef-
fective and successful principals (see Tab.
5) and their connection to student outcome.
4 SQA stands for Schulqualität Allgemeinbildung (School Quality General Education).
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 77 01/03/16 11:24
78 | Six-monthly Journal on Learning. Research and Innovation in Education
Tab. 4 - Competencies of principals in connection with the pedagogical utilisation of the education stan-
dards assessment (Wiesner, Schreiner, & Breit, 2015).
Fig. 7 - Framework model for the pedagogical utilisation of the education standards assessment (Wie-
sner, Schreiner & Breit, 2015).
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 78 01/03/16 11:24
RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 7, n. 2 - December 2015 | 79
Tab. 5 - 21 competencies of eff ective and successful principals (Marzano et al., 2005, p. 42).
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 79 01/03/16 11:24
80 | Six-monthly Journal on Learning. Research and Innovation in Education
2.5.5 Competence profi le
of school management
The Huber model (see also Huber, 2011,
Huber et al., 2013) describes competencies
based on job requirements on various levels
of leadership or for various functions (from
teachers to team leaders to school leaders
in charge of the school in its entirety or the
school administration). The competence mod-
el is also used for the online “Competence
Profi le School Management” self-assessment
(CPSM; Huber & Hiltmann, 2011; see Tab.
6). This off ers principals personal feedback,
enabling them to refl ect on their leadership
qualities by identifying their strengths and
Fig. 8 - School management model (Huber, 2015).
Tab. 6: Structural elements in the CPSM competence model (Huber et al., 2013).
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 80 01/03/16 11:24
RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 7, n. 2 - December 2015 | 81
2.5.6 Central5 Leadership
The Central European Co-operation
for Education project initiated by Austria,
Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech
Republic has made a signifi cant contribution
to paradigm 3.0. Here, the aim was to fi nd
the common, transnational competencies
for school leadership which create conditions
conducive to learning. The title “Central5” not
only refers to the fi ve countries involved, but
also to the fi ve central areas of competen-
cies for which principals should possess the
requisite knowledge and the necessary skills
and attitudes if they are to head schools suc-
cessfully in the 21st century: 1. Leading and
Managing Learning and Teaching, 2. Leading
and Managing Change, 3. Leading and Man-
aging Self, 4. Leading and Managing Others,
5. Leading and Managing the Institution (see
Fig. 9 left hand side). The competency frame-
work can be implemented on various levels in
the education system for a range of purposes
(e.g., as an instrument for self-assessment,
for the interrelation between management
and leadership or for recruitment procedures;
Schley & Schratz, 2014; see Fig. 9 right hand
Fig. 9 - Central5 competency framework (source: Révai & Kirkham, 2013; left hand side) and Interrela-
tion between management and leadership (Hinterhuber, 2003; right hand side).
2.5.7 A culture of leadership
as FieldTransFormation
A further current approach in school
leadership research 3.0 has been initiated
by a group called “The Culture of Leadership
in Austrian Schools”, which defi nes the cul-
ture of leadership in education as the basis
for successful leadership in practice. In the
educational context of schools, a “culture of
leadership” is understood to be a visionary
style of leadership embracing all leadership
responsibilities, in which responsibility is
shared in order to fulfi l and achieve mutual
tasks and common goals through personal,
social, organisational and systemic as well
as value-based, purpose-based emotion,
thought and action. Another approach relat-
ed to this is the “FieldTransFormation 360”
model that can be used to describe school
leadership competencies based on the defi ni-
tion of a culture of leadership. This approach
covers a wide range of competencies for
social and situational actions. Competency
refers to the inherent ability to freely vary and
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 81 01/03/16 11:24
82 | Six-monthly Journal on Learning. Research and Innovation in Education
generate knowledge and actions, meaning
a certain level of quality that is more highly
aggregated and is characterised as an ability
to actually handle knowledge and actions
(Dewe, 2010). The X-axis shows the con-
tinuum between the objective level (2.0) and
the relational level (3.0). The Y-axis shows the
focus on stability (1.0) and on development
(3.0) in processes. The fi rst square (bottom
left; hereafter clockwise) represents “rational
processes”, the second “strategic processes”,
the third “creative processes” and the fourth
“identity processes” with regard to educational
leadership (cf. Fig. 10).
Fig. 10 - School leadership qualities according to the “FieldTransFormation 360” model5.
5 The “FieldTransFormation 360” model was developed by a think tank consisting of Wilfried Schley, Michael Schratz,
Christian Wiesner, David Kemethofer and Johannes Schley, and based on the theoretical work of Riemann (1961),
Ulrich, Zenger & Smallwood (1999), Watzlawick, Beavin Bavelas & Jackson (1967), Thomann (2014), Scharmer
(2009), Schley & Schley (2010), Schratz, Hartmann and Schley (2010), Wiesner (2010), Scharmer & Kräuter
(2013). The model was also developed with reference to the “Central 5”.
2.5.8 Summary of school leadership 3.0
In paradigm 3.0, decision makers are
once again actively involved, and the aim is
for clear practical relevance and for insights
that can be applied directly. Findings should
primarily be implemented in developing
schools (Huber, 2005; Schratz, 2009b). An
essential step forward has been taken here
by including problems from the perspectives
of paradigms 1.0 and 2.0 (Scharmer & Käufer,
2013; Wiesner, 2010). For this, the devel-
opment of schools (3.0) requires a strong
focus on innovation, and thus works on the
system in order to establish quality (1.0) and
effi cacy (2.0) through processes of change
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 82 01/03/16 11:24
RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 7, n. 2 - December 2015 | 83
and a change of paradigm (thus setting 3.0
clearly apart from 1.0 and 2.0). In paradigm
3.0, school leadership is a style of leadership
in dialogue form that opens perspectives; its
whole tenor is evaluative, and it embraces a
focus on competencies.
3. Summary and Discussion
The article describes three paradigms
of research on school leadership. The para-
digms diff er in the conceptional approaches
of the involved actors (for an overview see
Tab. 1) and start at diff erent points in time
(cf. Fig. 1). The paradigms describe the
prevailing direction of research. New para-
digms do not replace the previous one, but
co-exist. While paradigms 1.0 and 2.0 can
be described elaborately and are shown in
several studies, this is more challeging in the
case of the ongoing paradigm 3.0. The foll-
wing section forecasts possible tendencies
of a new paradigm 4.0.
3.1 School Leadership 4.0
School development research in paradigm
4.0 as a lever for change aims to achieve the
highest possible future potential by including
a focus on values and meaning, but also aims
to improve effi cacy and quality by shaping it
in a corresponsive, resonant and respectful
manner (Scharmer, 2009, p. 31). Thus, it is
not intended to be an integration paradigm
or a fusion in the sense of merging the ex-
isting paradigms, but as a confl uence inside
which new designs are made possible by
correlations and interdependencies. Hence
school leadership 4.0 requires a set of creative
forms (from 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and their correlations
and interdependencies) that helps individual
schools as well as the entire school system
to engage with new forms through a process
of fi nding mutual purpose (“sensing”), mutual
inspiration (between the 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 par-
adigms) and a common creative design (i.e.
correlations and interdependencies through
“prototyping”; Scharmer & Käufer 2013, p.
139). Paradigm 4.0 is not an “either-or” trend,
because neither “can specifi c insights from
method research be replaced by highly com-
plex large-scale research projects” (Huber,
2005, p. 62), nor “can one do without such
overview studies”. School leadership research
is thus faced with the task of designing stud-
ies in such a way as to include both practical
and academic research. Paradigm 4.0 cannot
thereby be seen as a simple addition of the
existing concepts (1.0, 2.0 and 3.0), but must
include their interaction in the sense of a sat-
urated model (1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0 + 1.0 x 2.0 +
2.0 x 3.0 + 1.0 x 3.0 + 1.0 x 2.0 x 3.0 = 4.0).
Essential for the “new” research focus are
well-founded training processes for those in
school leadership positions to improve the
quality (1.0) and effi cacy (2.0) of vocational
training, advanced training and continued
training, and to encourage successful devel-
opment (3.0). At best, future forms therefore
currently emerge only on the horizon of school
leadership research 4.0 (see Scharmer &
Kräuter, 2013). Problems with implementa-
tion, theory gaps, a too vague understanding
of leadership and organisation, but also ques-
tions concerning the signifi cance of emotions,
personalisation, relationships and mutual
creative input in development processes are
numerous angles of the processes of stabili-
sation and change in schools that still require
an enormous amount of clarifi cation from
research 4.0 (see also Bonsen et al. 2008;
Wiesner, 2008; Wiesner, 2010; Schratz &
Westfall-Greiter, 2010). For current education-
al challenges and the debates on inclusion,
gender and personalised learning, paradigm
4.0 can be a fresh opportunity in practice.
It appears inevitable that full attention will
have to be paid to school leadership research,
taking into account all paradigms to date, in
particular in order to enable current reforms
made by the “new” management to be suc-
cessful, and above all, of duration. A new,
broad and exciting fi eld of school leadership
research is therefore currently emerging.
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 83 01/03/16 11:24
84 | Six-monthly Journal on Learning. Research and Innovation in Education
Altrichter H. & Posch P. (1996). Mikropolitik der Schulentwicklung. Förderliche und hemmende Bedingun-
gen für Innovationen in der Schule [Micropolitics in school development. Conductive and repressice
conditions for innovations in schools]. Innsbruck: Studienverlag.
Altrichter H., Gußner N., Maderthaner P. & Schlosser A. (2009). Kennzeichen guter Schulen [Charac-
teristics of good schools]. In G. Mertens, U. Frost, W. Böhm & V. Ladenthin (Eds.), Handbuch der
Erziehungswissenschaft [Handbook of Educational Science] (pp. 713-727). Paderborn: Schöningh.
Altrichter H., & Maag Merki K. (Eds.). (2010). Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem [Handbook of
new governance regimes in the educational system]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Altrichter H., Kemethofer D. & Leitgöb H. (2012). Ansätze der Systemsteuerung in der Einschätzung
von Schulleitern [How school principals perceive and evaluate strategies of system governance].
Empirische Pädagogik, 26 (1), pp. 12-32.
Altrichter H. & Kemethofer D. (2015). Neue Ansätze der Steuerung des Schulsystems und die Einstellung
von Schulleitungen [New approaches of governing in the education system and the attitude of school
leaders]. Bildung und Erziehung, 68 (3), pp. 291-310.
Bonsen M. (2013). Wirksame Schulleitung [Eff ective school leadership]. In H. Buchen & H.-G. Rolff .
(Eds.), Professionswissen Schulleitung [Professional knowledge of school leaders] (3rd edition, pp.
193-228). Weinheim: Beltz.
Bonsen M. (2010). Schulleitungshandeln [School leaders‘ actions]. In H. Altrichter & K. Maag Merki (Ed.),
Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem [Handbook of new governance regimes in the educational
system] (pp. 277-294). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Bonsen M. & Bos W. (2010): Bildungspsychologie auf der Mesoebene: Die Betrachtung von Bildungsinsti-
tutionen [Educational psychology on the meso level: The examination of educational establishements].
In C. Spiel, B. Schober, P. Wagner & R. Reimann (Eds.), Bildungspsychologie [Educational psychology]
(pp. 388-405). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Bonsen M., Bos W. & Rolff H.-G. (2008). Zur Fusion von Schuleff ektivitäts- und Schulentwicklungs-
forschung [On the Fusion of school eff ectiveness and school development research]. In W. Bos, H.G.
Holtappels, H. Pfeiff er, H.-G. Rolff & R. Schulz-Zander (Ed.), Jahrbuch der Schulentwicklung. Band
15. Daten, Beispiele und Perspektiven [Yearbook school development. Volume 15. Data, examples,
and perspectives] (pp. 11-39). Weinheim: Juventa.
Brauckmann, S. & Pashiardis, P. (2011). A validation study of the leadership styles of a holistic leadership
theoretical framework. International Journal of Educational Management, 25, pp. 11-32.
Brauckmann, S., Hanfstingl, B., & Schwarz, A. (2015). Schulentwicklungsmanagement zwischen Schulau-
tonomie und Autonomieerleben - Ergebnisse aus der SHaRP-Studie [School management between
school autonomy and percieved autonomy - results of the SHaRP-Study]. Presentation at the ÖFEB
annual conference on 1 September 2015.
Brauckmann S. & Schwarz A. (2015). “No time to manage? The trade-off between relevant tasks and
actual priorities of school leaders in Germany”. International Journal of Educational Management, 29
(6), pp. 749-765.
Buchen H. & Rolff H.-G. (Eds.). (2013). Professionswissen Schulleitung [Professional knowledge of school
leaders] (3rd edition). Weinheim: Beltz.
Creemers B. (1994). The eff ective classroom. London: Cassell.
Demski D. & Racherbäumer, K. (2015). Headteachers’ evidence-based practice - fi ndings from German
schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 29 (6), pp. 735-748.
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 84 01/03/16 11:24
RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 7, n. 2 - December 2015 | 85
Dewe B. (2010). Begriff skonjunkturen und der Wandel von Qualifi kations- zum Kompetenzjargon [Changing
from the technical term qualifi cation to the term competence]. In T. Kurtz & M. Pfadenhauer (Eds.),
Soziologie der Kompetenz [Sociology of competencies] (pp. 107-118). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Dubs R. (2005). Die Führung einer Schule: Leadership und Management [Leading a school: Leadership
and management]. Zurich: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Ender B. & Strittmatter T. (2001). Personalentwicklung als Schulleitungsaufgabe [Personnel development
as a duty of principals]. Innsbruck: Studienverlag.
Fend H. (1987). ‘Gute Schulen – schlechte Schulen’ – Die einzelne Schule als pädagogische Handlung-
seinheit [‘Good schools – bad schools’. – The individual school as an educational action unit]. In U.
Steff ens & T. Bargel (Eds.), Erkundungen zur Wirksamkeit und Qualität von Schule. Beiträge aus dem
Arbeitskreis “Qualität von Schule” [Exploring eff ectivenes and qualitiy of schools: Contributions of the
research group “Quality of schools”] (pp. 55-79). Wiesbaden: Hessisches Institut für Bildungsplanung
und Schulentwicklung.
Fend H. (1999). Thesen zum Workshop [Thesis of the workshop]. In Zentrum für Schulentwicklung (Ed.),
Evaluation und Qualität im Bildungswesen. Problemanalyse und Lösungsansätze am Schnittpunkt
von Wissenschaft und Bildungspolitik [Evaluation and quality in education. Problems and solutions in
science and policy] (pp. 136-139). Graz: BMUK.
Fend H. (2006). Neue Theorie der Schule [New theory of schools]. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissen-
Fischer W. & Schratz M. (1999). Schule leiten und gestalten. Mit einer neuen Führungskultur in die Zukunft
[Leading and constructing a school. A new culture of leading for the future]. Innsbruck: Studienverlag.
Fullan M. (2014): The Principal. Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greiner U. (2008). Opening speech of the symposium “Religiöse Dimensionen in Schulkultur und Schu-
lentwicklung” on 5 May 2008. Available on 25.09.2015 at
Grißmann C. & Kranebitter M. (2015). Alles halb so wild: Erste Begegnungen mit EVA [It’s not all that bad:
First contacts with EVA]. Erziehung und Unterricht, 165 (1-2), pp. 56-64.
Hallinger P. (2011). Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Ed-
ucational Administration, 49 (2), pp. 125-142.
Hallinger P. & Hecker R. (1998). Exploring the Headteacher’s Contribution to School Eff ectiveness: 1980-
1995. In School Eff ectiveness and School Improvement: An international Journal of Research, Policy
and Practice, 9 (2), pp. 157-191.
Hattie J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New
York: Routledge.
Harazd B. & Ophuysen S. van (2011). Transformationale Führung in Schulen. Der Einsatz des “Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire” (MLQ 5 x Short) [Transformational leadership in schools. The use of the
“Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire” (MLQ 5 x Short)]. Journal für Educational Research Online,
3 (1), pp. 141-167.
Hartmann M. & Schratz M. (2010). Schulleitung als Agentin des Wandels in der autonomen Schulentwick-
lung [Principals as change agents within autonomous school development]. In J. Schmich & C.
Schreiner (HEdrsg.), Talis 2008: Schule als Arbeitsplatz. Vertiefte Analysen aus österreichischer
Perspektive. BIFIE-Report 4/2010 [Talis 2008: School as workplacea. Deepening analysis from the
Austrian perspective. BIFIE-report 4/2010] (pp. 111-126). Graz: Leykam.
Holtappels H.G. & Rolff H.-G. (2004). “Zum Stand von Schulentwicklungstheorie und –forschung” [On
the status of school development theory and research]. In U. Popp & S. Reh (Eds.), Schule forschend
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 85 01/03/16 11:24
86 | Six-monthly Journal on Learning. Research and Innovation in Education
entwickeln. Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung zwischen Systemzwängen und Reformansprüchen. FS
für Klaus-Jürgen Tillmann zum 60. Geburtstag [Developing schools on the basis of research. School
and teaching development between forces and reforms. Symposium for Klaus-Jürgen Tillmann for
his 60th birthday] (pp. 51-74). Weinheim: Juventa.
Hinterhuber H.H. (2003). Leadership: Strategisches Denken systematisch schulen von Sokrates bis Jack
Welch [Leadership: Training strategic thinking systematically from Sokrates to Jack Welch]. Frankfurt/
Main: Frankfurter Allg. Buch im FAZ-Inst.
Hopkins D., Ainscow M. & West M. (1994). School improvement in an era of change. London: Cassell.
Hosenfeld I. & Groß Ophoff J. (2007). Nutzung und Nutzen von Evaluationsstudien in Schule und Un-
terricht [Use and benefi t of evaluation studies in schools and teaching]. Empirische Pädagogik, 21
(4), pp. 352-367.
Huber S.G. (2005). Schulbegleitforschung - internationale Erfahrungen [School leadership research - inter-
national experiences]. In E. Eckert (Ed.), Schulbegleitforschung. Erwartungen - Ergebnisse - Wirkungen
[Research on schools. Expectations - results - eff ects] (pp. 41-74). Münster: Waxmann.
Huber S.G. (2008). Steuerungshandeln schulischer Führungskräfte aus Sicht der Schulleitungsforschung
[Principals’ actions from a perspective of school leadership research]. In R. Langer (Ed.), ‘Warum tun
die das?’ Governanceanalysen zum Steuerungshandeln in der Schulentwicklung [‘Why are they acting
like this?’ Analysis of governance pertaining actions in school development] (pp. 95-126). Wiesbaden:
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Huber S.G. (2011). Schulleitung international [International School leadership]. In T. Bohl, W. Helsper,
H.-G. Holtappels & C. Schelle (Eds.), Handbuch Schulentwicklung. Theorie - Forschung - Praxis
[Handbook of school development research. Theory - research - practice] (pp. 213-221). Bad Heil-
bronn: Julius Klinkhardt.
Huber S.G., & Hiltmann, M. (2011). Competence Profi le School Management (CPSM) - an inventory for
the self-assessment of school leadership. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability,
23 (1), pp. 65-88.
Huber S.G., Schneider N., Gleibs H.E. & Schwander M. (2013). Leadership in der Lehrerbildung. En-
twicklung von Kompetenzen für pädgogische Führung [Leadership in teacher education. Development
of competencies for pedagogical leadership]. Stiftung der Deutschen Wirtschaft und Robert Bosch
Stiftung: Berlin.
Judge T.A. & Piccolo R.F. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test
of their Relative Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (5), pp. 755-768.
Kemethofer D. & Altrichter H. (2015). Schulqualität Allgemeinbildung (SQA) in der Einschätzung von
Schulleitungen allgemeinbildender Pfl ichtschulen [School quality in general education in the perception
of school leaders]. Erziehung und Unterricht (in press, accepted for print).
Kohler B. & Schrader F.W. (2004). Ergebnisrückmeldung und Rezeption: Von der externen Evaluation
zur Entwicklung von Schule und Unterricht [Feedback and reception: From external evaluation to
development in schools and classes]. Empirische Pädagogik, 18 (1), pp. 3-17.
Krainer K. (2007). Die Programme IMST und SINUS: Refl exionen über Ansatz, Wirkungen und Weiter-
entwicklungen [The programmes IMST and SINUS: Refl ections on approach, impact, and devel-
opment]. In D. Höttecke (Ed.), Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht im internationalen Vergleich [An
international comparison of teaching sciences] (pp. 20-48). Berlin: LIT Verlag.
Kruse P. (2004). Next Practice. Erfolgreiches Management von Instabilität. Veränderung durch Vernetzu-
ng [Next Practice. Succsessfully managing instability though changes and networking]. Off enbach:
Gabal Management Verlag.
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 86 01/03/16 11:24
RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 7, n. 2 - December 2015 | 87
Leithwood K.A. & Riehl, C. (2005). What Do We Already Know About Educational Leadership? In W. A.
Firestone & C. Riehl (Ed.), A New Agenda for Research in Educational Leadership (pp. 12–27). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Leithwood K., Day C., Sammons P., Harris A. & Hopkins D. (2006). Successful School Leadership. What
it is and how it infl uendes pupil Learning. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Levine D.U. & Lezotte L.W. (1990). Unusually eff ective schools: A review of research and practice. Mad-
ison: National Centre for Eff ective School Research.
Lohmann A. (2013). Eff ektiv Schule führen. Wie Schulleitungshandeln die Schul- und Unterrichtsqualität
steigert [Eff ective school leadership. How principals can increase teaching quality]. Cologne: Carl Link.
Lohmann A. & Minderop D. (2009). Führungsverantwortung der Schulleitung [The principals‘ responsibility
of leading schools] (3rd edition). Cologne: Carl Link.
Maag Merki K. & Werner S. (2013). Schulentwicklungsforschung. Aktuelle Schwerpunkte und zukünftige
Forschungsperspektiven [School improvement research. Current focuses and further perspectives].
Die Deutsche Schule, 105 (3), pp. 295-304.
Marzano R.J., Waters T. & McNulty B.A. (2005). School Leadership that Works: From Research to Re-
sults. Alexandria: ASCD.
Murphy J. (1990). Headteacher Instructional Leadership. In P. Thurston & L. Lotto (Ed.), Perspectives
on the school. Advances in educational administration (pp. 163-200). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press Inc.
OECD (2009). Creating eff ective teaching and learning environments. First results from TALIS. Paris:
OECD Publishing.
OECD (2014). TALIS 2013 Results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. Paris: OECD
Pietsch, M. (2014). Was wissen wir über wirksame Schulleitungen? [What do we know about eff ective
principals?] Journal für Schulentwicklung, 18 (2), pp. 15–23.
Posch P. (1999). Qualitätsevaluation und Qualitätsentwicklung im Schulwesen [Evaluation and development
of the school system]. In Zentrum für Schulentwicklung (Ed.), Evaluation und Qualität im Bildungswesen.
Problemanalyse und Lösungsansätze am Schnittpunkt von Wissenschaft und Bildungspolitik [Evaluation
and quality in education. Problems and solutions in science and policy] (pp. 197-210). Graz: BMUK.
Radnitzky E. (2015). SQA - ein Generationenprojekt [SQA - a generation project]. Erziehung und Unter-
richt, 165 (1-2), pp. 8-11.
Rauch F. & Biott C. (Eds.). (2003). Schulleitung: Rahmenbedingungen, Anforderungen und Qualifi kation
aus internationaler Perspektive [School leadership: contexts, requirements and qualifi cations from an
international perspective]. Innsbruck: Studienverlag.
Rauscher E. (1999). Das Schulautonomie-Handbuch [Handbook of school autonomy]. Vienna: BMBWK.
Révai N. & Kirkham G.A. (Eds.). (2013). The art and science of leading a school. Central5: a Central Eu-
ropean view on competencies for school leaders; fi nal report of the project: International co-operation
for school lead-ership involving Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden.
Budapest: Tempus Public Foundation. Available on 25.08.2015 at
Reynolds D. (1995): The eff ective School. An inaugural lecture. Evaluation and Research in Education,
9 (2), pp. 57-73.
Riemann F. (1961). Grundformen der Angst. Eine tiefenpsychologische Studie [Anxiety. Using Depth
Psychology to Find a Balance in Your Life]. München: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag.
Robinson V.M.J., Lloyd C.A. & Rowe K.J. (2008). The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: An
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 87 01/03/16 11:24
88 | Six-monthly Journal on Learning. Research and Innovation in Education
Analysis of the Diff erential Eff ects of Leadership Types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (5),
pp. 635-674.
Rolff H.G. (2002). Rückmeldung und Nutzung der Ergebnisse von großfl ächigen Leistungsuntersuchun-
gen. Grenzen und Chancen [Feedback and use of large scale studies: limitations and chances]. In
H. G. Rolff , H.G. Holtappels, K. Klemm, H. Pfeiff er & R. Schulz-Zander (Hrsg.), Jahrbuch der Schu-
lentwicklung, Band 12 (pp. 75-98). Weinheim: Juventa.
Rolff H.G. (2014). Sind schulische Strukturfaktoren wirklich nicht so wichtig? Hattie und das deutsche
Schulsystem [Are factors that structure schools really important? Hattie and the German school sys-
tem]. In E. Terhart (Ed.), Die Hattie-Studie in der Diskussion. Probleme sichtbar machen [Discussion
of the Hattie-study] (pp. 67-77). Seelze: Klett/Kallmeyer.
Rolff H.G. & Schratz M. (2013). Schulentwicklungsforschung [School development research]. Journal für
Schulentwicklung, 17 (2), pp. 4-6.
Sammons P., Hillman J. & Mortimore P. (1995). Key characteristics of eff ective schools: A review of school
eff ectiveness research. London. OFSTED
Scharmer C.O. (2009). Theorie U. Von der Zukunft her führen: Presencing als soziale Technik [Theory U:
Learning from the futures as it emerges]. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Verlag.
Scharmer C.O. & Käufer K. (2013). Von der Zukunft her führen: Von der Egosystem- zur Ökosys-
tem-Wirtschaft. Theorie U in der Praxis [Leading from the emerging future: From ego-system to
eco-system economics. Theory U in practice]. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Verlag.
Scheerens J. (Ed.). (2012). School Leadership Eff ects Revisited. Review and Meta-Analysis of Empirical
Studies. Dordrecht: Springer.
Schley, V., & Schley, W. (2010). Handbuch Kollegiales Teamcoaching – Systemische Beratung in Aktion
[Handbook collegially teamcoaching –systematic advice in action]. Innsbruck: Studienverlag.
Schmich J. & Breit S. (2009). Schulleitung: Im Spannungsfeld zwischen pädagogischen und adminis-
trativen Aufgaben [School ledership: Confl icts between pedagogical and administrative duties]. In J.
Schmich & C. Schreiner (Ed.), TALIS 2008 (pp. 67-76). Graz: Leykam.
Schober B., Klug J., Finsterwald M., Wagner P. & Spiel C. (2012). Ergebnisorientierte Qualitätsentwicklung
von Schule: Spezifi sche Kompetenzen von Lehrkräften, Schulleiterinnen und Schulleitern [Result-based
development in schools. Specifi c competencies of teachers and pricipals]. In B. Herzog-Punzenberger
(Ed.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2012, Band 2. Fokussierte Analysen bildungspolitischer
Schwerpunktthemen [National education report of Austria, Volume 2. Focus analysis of key aspects
in educational policy] (pp. 111-142). Graz: Leykam.
Schratz M. (1998). Schulleitung als change agent: Vom Verwalten zum Gestalten von Schule [School
leader as a change agent: From bureaucracy to forming schools]. In H. Altrichter, W. Schley & M.
Schratz (Eds.), Handbuch der Schulentwicklung [Handbook of school development] (pp. 160-189).
Innsbruck: Studienverlag.
Schratz M. (2009a). Kommentar zu Kapitel 6 Schulleitung [Comment to chapter 6 school leadership]. In:
J. Schmich & C. Schreiner (Eds.), TALIS 2008 (pp. 77-79). Graz: Leykam.
Schratz M. (2009b). “Lernseits” von Unterricht. Alte Muster, neue Lebenswelten - was für Schulen?
[A learning perspective of teaching. Traditional models, new environments - what kind of schools?]
Lernende Schule, 12, pp. 16-21.
Schratz M. (2012) Austria’s Balancing Act: Walking the tightrope between Federalism and Centralization.
In K.S. Louis & B. van Velzen (Eds.), Educational policy in an International Context. Political Culture
and Its Eff ects (pp. 95–104). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schratz M. & Hartmann M. (2009). Schulautonomie in Österreich: Bilanz und Perspektiven für eine
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 88 01/03/16 11:24
RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 7, n. 2 - December 2015 | 89
eigenverantwortliche Schule [School autonomy in Austria: balance and perspectives for individual
schools]. In W. Specht (Ed.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2009. Band 2. Fokussierte Analysen
bildungspolitischer Schwerpunktthemen [National education report of Austria 2009. Volume 2. Focus
analysis of key aspects in educational policy] (pp. 323-340). Graz: Leykam.
Schratz M., Hartmann M. & Schley W. (2010). Schule wirksam leiten. Analyse innovativer Führung in
der Praxis [Eff ectively leading schools. An analysis of innovative leadership in practical applications].
Münster: Waxmann.
Schratz M. & Westfall-Greiter T. (2010). Das Dilemma der Individualisierungsdidkatik, Plädoyer für
Personalisiertes Lernen in der Schule [The dilemma of individual oriented didactics: A pleading for
personalised learning]. Journal für Schulentwicklung, 1 (10), pp. 18–31.
Steff ens U. (2009). Schulqualitätsdiskussion in Deutschland - Ihre Entwicklung im Überblick [Discussion of
school quality in Germany - overview of its developments]. In J. van Buer & C. Wagner (Ed.), Qualität
von Schule. Ein kritisches Handbuch [Quality of schools. A critical handbook] (pp. 21-52). Frankfurt:
Peter Lang.
Steff ens U. & Bargel T. (1987). Einleitung: “Qualität von Schule” - Ein neuer Ansatz der Schulentwick-
lung [Introduction: “quality of schools” - a new approach to school development]. In U. Steff ens & T.
Bargel (Eds.), Erkundungen zur Wirksamkeit und Qualität von Schule. Beiträge aus dem Arbeitskreis
“Qualität von Schule” [Investigating eff ectiveness and quality of schools. Contributions from the re-
search group “quality of schools”] (pp. 1-20). Wiesbaden: Hessisches Institut für Bildungsplanung
und Schulentwicklung.
Schubert K. (2015). Führen mit SQA - mit einer systemischen Organisationsentwicklungsbrille betrachtet
[Leading with SQA - Examination in a systematical view of organisational development]. Erziehung
und Unterricht, 165 (1-2), pp. 19-28.
Svecnik, E., & Skliris, B. (2015). Evaluation der Initiative SQA. SQA aus Sicht von Schulleiterinnen und
Schulleitern [Evaluation of SQA from a perspcetive of principals]. Presentation at the ÖFEB annual
conference on 1 September
Teddlie C. & Stringfi eld S.C. (1993). Schools make a diff erence: Lessons learned from a 10-year study
of school eff ects. New York: Teachers College Press.
Thiel F. (2014). Faktoren erfolgreichen Schulleiterhandelns unter den Bedingungen der Neuen Steuerung
[Factors of successful school leadership conditional on new educational governance]. Schulmanage-
ment, 4 (8), pp. 8-11.
Thomann C. (2014). Klärungshilfe 2. Konfl ikte im Beruf: Methoden und Modelle klärender Gespräche
[Help for clarifi cation 2. Confl icts in profession: Methods and models clarifying conversations].Reinbek
bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Thonke F. & Lücken M. (2015). Rezeption und Nutzung von KERMIT (Kompetenzen ermitteln) bei der
datengestützten Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung an Hamburger Schulen [Reception and use of
KERMIT (identifying competencies) in data-driven school and teaching development at schools in
Hamburg]. Presentation at the 8th congress of the DGfE section “Empirical Education Research” on
23 September 2015.
Ulrich, D., Zenger, J., & Smallwood, N. (1999). Results-Based Leadership. Bosten, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Warwas J. (2012). Prädikatoren der Arbeitszufriedenheit schulischer Führungskräfte [Predictors of job
satisfaction among school pricipals]. Empirische Pädagogik, 26 (1), pp. 56-77.
Watzlawick P., Beavin Bavelas J. & Jackson D.D. (1967): Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study
of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 89 01/03/16 11:24
90 | Six-monthly Journal on Learning. Research and Innovation in Education
Wiesner C. (2008). Die Bedeutung der Emotionen in der Medienpädagogik [The importance of emotion
in media pedagogy]. In E. Blaschitz & M. Seibt (Eds.), Medienbildung in Österreich [Media education
in Austria] (pp. 216-228). Münster: LIT.
Wiesner C. (2010). Interpersonelle Kommunikation 4.0. Analytische Betrachtung der zwischenmenschli-
chen Kommunikation in der Aus-, Fort- und Weiterbildung [Interpersonnel communication 4.0. Ana-
lytical examination of interpersonal communication in further education]. Medienjournal, 1, pp. 4-19.
Wiesner C., George A.C., Kemethofer D. & Längauer-Hohengaßner H. (2015). Bildungsstandards in
Österreich: Weshalb, Wozu und Wie? [Educational standards in Austria: Why, for what and how?]
Presentation at the ÖFEB annual conference on 31 August 2015.
Wiesner C., Schreiner C. & Breit S. (2015). Rahmenmodell zur pädagogischen Nutzung der Kompe-
tenzorientierung durch die Bildungsstandardüberprüfung [Framework for the pedagogical use of
competence orientation through educational standards evaluation]. Available on 30.10.2015 at
Art_04_Wiesner.indd 90 01/03/16 11:24
... At the same time, there are reports indicating that in countries where the role has been changed substantially, principals are struggling with that role (Taglietti et al., 2018). In Germany, too, schools have been increasingly expected to evaluate their outcomes and develop strategies for improvement during the past two decades, which has entailed changes in the role of principals (Wiesner et al., 2015). In contrast to the US, however, German principals receive little support from the local or regional authorities when it comes to improvement, and there are very few network or other collaborative structures between schools at local level (Klein and Bremm, 2020;Tulowitzki, 2019). ...
... As a result, schools were expected to devise their own improvement plans, and principals were supposed to play a key role in shaping said school improvement rather than just administering it. The implementation of evaluation systems moreover meant that they were not only responsible for the improvement of their school, but also accountable for it (Wiesner et al., 2015). ...
Full-text available
As a result of reforms in the governance of schools, the role of principals in Germany has changed from a teacher with additional administrative tasks to a leader of school improvement. However, many principals in Germany did not receive any substantial formal training for management and leadership tasks. Using the results of a survey of 1240 principals in nine German states, we investigated in which areas of school improvement German principals had professional develop- ment needs and how their needs were related to individual and school-related factors. Despite a lack of training and in contrast to studies from other countries, principals reported only moderate professional development needs, and these were influenced, only to a limited extent, by their training and experience and, to a greater extent, by the individual self-efficacy and the perception of teachers in schools. The results might indicate that the normatively postulated change of the principal’s role has not yet permeated their practice.
... Das Modell der Feldtransformation (Wiesner, 2019a;Gregorzewski, Schratz & Wiesner, 2018;Wiesner, George, Kemethofer & Schratz, 2015) folgt dem Konzept der Konnektivierung, also dem Prozess des Vernetzens und Verbindens, als "beständig neue Zusammenführung" (Petzold, 2016, S. 1), wodurch auch in diesem Beitrag Verbindbares vernetzt und Verschiedenes "bei Wahrung von Unterschieden" (ebd.) verbunden wird. ...
... Den drei Wertekategorien, -gruppen und Sinnsystemen können die Begriffe a) "Tätigkeit" (Frankl, 1946, S. 33) und "Schaffen" (ebd.; Schaffens-Werte), b) "Erleben" (ebd.) und "Erfahrung" (Riemeyer, 2007, S. 230; Erlebniswerte) sowie c) "Haltungen" und "Eingestellt-Sein" (Frankl, 1946, S. 35 Spranger, 1922;Frankl, 1946;Schwartz, 1992;Schlick, 2017;Wiesner, George, Kemethofer & Schratz, 2015;Wiesner, 2019, und Wiesner & Schratz, 2020 (Petzold & Orth, 2005). Im Besonderen dienen die Wertegruppierungen von Frankl (1946) "als Wege der Sinnfindung" (Raskob, 2005, S. 173). ...
Full-text available
Der vorliegende Beitrag erarbeitet ein Verständnis von Werte- und Sinnsystemen für das Mentoring und konnektiviert dabei unterschiedliche theoretische und empirische Ansätze, um ein tieferes Verständnis von einem wertorientierten Mentoring zu generieren. Im Besonderen greift der Beitrag auf die Wertekategorien von Frankl (1946) sowie auf die Wertetheorie von Spranger (1955) und Schwartz (1992) zurück. Die vielfältigen Perspektiven auf ein wertorientiertes Mentoring ermöglichen ein „Sowohl-als-auch“ in der theoretischen Fundierung und in der Praxis des Mentorings. Im Beitrag wird ein integratives, strukturdynamisches Wertemodell vorgestellt, um die Ausrichtung vielfältiger Werte und Wertekategorien aus unterschiedlichen theoretischen Herangehensweisen aufzeigen zu können. Ohne Orientierung, „ohne Richtung, ohne Sinn ist keine Handlung möglich“ schreibt Adler (1937, S. 182), denn das Denken und Handeln stehen im Einklang mit der „grundlegenden persönlichen Ausrichtung“ (Nicolay, 2005, S. 526). Auch nach Spranger (1922, S. 114) formen sich immer „bestimmte Sinn- und Werterichtungen in [… einer] Struktur“ heraus, wodurch Wertorientierungen und Lebenswerte entstehen, die unser Handeln und Verhalten leiten. Werte und Sinn verweisen dabei meist wie ein „Pfeil auf Entwicklung und Werden“ (Längle, 2005), dabei nehmen Werte und Sinn „Bezug auf eine Grundstruktur von Sein“ (ebd.), wodurch immer „eine Richtung ein[ge]schlagen“ (ebd.) wird (Wiesner, 2019). In jeder Struktur gibt es vielfältige Ausrichtungen an unterschiedlichen Werten und Sinnorientierungen, diese verlangen im Grunde eine „Elastizität“ (Frankl, 1946, S. 91), um auch elastische Adaptionen von Werten durch transformatives (Um-)Lernen zu ermöglichen (Mezirow, 1981, 1991).
... Nevertheless, as outlined in the adapted table below, in the last 30 years the role of school leaders in Austria has undergone (and is still undergoing) a number of changes, including new requirements, roles and skills, and the need to tackle new challenges regarding school development and leadership practice (Wiesner et al. 2015). This change is comparable with the Anglo-American system (e.g. ...
Full-text available
After outlining the central role of leadership for individual and interorganisational learning in sustainable Professional Learning Networks (PLN), this article describes Austria’s professional learning environment and professional learning (PL) within this changing field. In order to meet urgent institutional requests for sustainable PL, new organisational responses are needed. The authors highlight the implications of the notion of responsiveness, framing it as resulting from interorganisational practices such as PLNs and as ensuring sustainable organisational leadership capabilities within PLNs. After describing the two levels of the study (meso and micro), the findings, which are based on two case studies in Austrian schools, show that the role played by PLNs in challenging professional learning environments is blurry. The discussion shows that these case studies have extended the single-level approach deployed in previous studies. The article concludes by highlighting the specific leadership role that is required within PLNs in order to establish responsiveness, change routines and thus enhance professional learning.
... Die Einführung des mehrdimensionalen Modells der Feldtransformation (Wiesner et al., 2015;Gregorzewski et al., 2018) erfolgte "in die Bildungsforschung im Bereich der Professionalisierung und Qualifizierung von Führungshandeln" (Wiesner & Dammerer, 2020, S. 254). Das Modell basiert u.a. ...
Full-text available
Forschendes Lernen dient dem Aufbau und der Förderung eines forschenden Habitus. Um die Entwicklung eines forschenden Habitus fundiert und adäquat beschreiben zu können, sind lerntheoretische Paradigmen innerhalb einer Struktur als Gesamtheit zu modellieren, wodurch verschiedene Konzepte des Forschenden Lernens auf einer phänomenologischen Ebene sowohl differenziert als auch integriert werden können. In dem Beitrag wird eine Rahmung für das Forschende Lernen vorgeschlagen und diskutiert, um auf Basis von struk-turdynamischen Annahmen ein komplexes Modell des Forschenden Lernens zu generieren. Dabei wird im Besonderen die Theorie der System-Interaktion (PSI) für die Modellierung herangezogen. Abstract: Inquiry-based Learning (the research-teaching nexus) serves to build and promote a research-based habitus. In order to be able to describe the development of a researcher's habitus in a well-founded and adequate way, it is necessary to model learning theory paradigms within a structure as a whole, so that different concepts of learning through research can be both differentiated and integrated on a phenomenological level. The paper proposes and discusses a framework for the research-teaching nexus in order to generate a complex model of enquiry-based Learning based on assumptions of structural dynamics. In particular, the theory of system-interaction (PSI) is used for the modelling.
... In contrast, the tasks of German principals until the 1990s were characterized as those of 'teachers with additional administrative tasks' who mainly ensured the functionality and rule compliance of the school, but had no responsibility with regard to improving the school quality (Wiesner et al. 2015;Klein et al. in print). This image was congruent with a bureaucratic rather than managerial view of the school system (for a disambiguation, see Klein and Schwanenberg 2020), in which school improvement was defined as school system development. ...
Full-text available
In international school improvement research, a long-standing theme is that school improvement is shaped to a great extent by principals and their leadership for learning. In contrast to that, this role is comparatively new in German-speaking countries. Since the leadership practices associated with this new role differ from old role expectations, it is reasonable to assume that “mature” school cultures might prevent principals from adopting these practices. In this paper, we examine the difference in leadership practice between principals of “mature” and “young” culture schools in socially disadvantaged areas using a standardized teacher survey. The results suggest that while schools with a mature school culture founded during the old principal role were less likely to have such leadership practices that are more proximal to teachers’ instruction and pedagogical practice, this result could largely be explained by other characteristics of the school culture and professional community.
Full-text available
Aim. The aim of the research is to determine what role management and schools play in the organisation of students” free time, and what activities it undertakes to educate for leisure time. Methods. This study used methods of theoretical analysis, survey research methods, and questionnaires, in which 1410 subjects such as principals, teachers, parents and students from 150 primary schools in Bosnia and Herzegowina (B&H) participated. Results. The results show that principals and teachers have positive attitudes about the rational use of students’ free time in order to prepare them for continuing self-education with the use of various sources of knowledge. Conclusion. Conclusions show that for a better understanding of the role of school management it is necessary to do more research about this issue on the territory of B&H, because the proper organisation and implementation of students’ free time can be successful if all participants in education work together. Research restrictions. Since it is not possible to make comparison with results of the previous research on this topic on the territory of B&H, the study compares results with results from other countries. Practical application. The practical goal is to examine the education and to increase the understanding and awareness of the free time of young people. Originality. This study is original and creative, and it contributes to better understanding of the role of management in leisure activities on students’ emotional, social, cognitive and work competencies.
mit Blick auf das Mentoring die Idee des Standpunktes und der Positionalität, durch welches das Zeigen von Ideen und Gedanken, also Modellen und Theorien aus unterschiedlichen Denkrichtungen heraus ermöglicht wird und sich ein Koordinatensystem ableiten lässt. Dazu wird das Bühler’sche Vierfelder-Schema mit den vier Ausrichtungen beschrieben, um die Positionalitäten auf Grundlage des Sprechens und der Sprache zu klären und ebenso einer Transformation zu unterziehen. Die Ideen und Gedanken eröffnen ein Verständnis für die Drei-Welten-Lehre von Popper (1974, 1978), woraus die überaus umsichtige Welten-Lehre von Habermas (1981) mit ihren Geltungsansprüchen eingeführt werden kann. Letztendlich führen jedoch alle Herangehensweisen erneut zum Bühler’schen Vierfelder-Schema, aus welchem heraus die Idee der Strukturdynamik und Feldtransformation weiterentwickelt werden kann, um als etwas Grundlegendes für das Anwendungsfeld Mentoring oder Leadership dienlich zu sein. Aus den Ideen des Beitrags lassen sich Weltbezüge und Geltungsansprüche für das Mentoring einerseits, jedoch auch andererseits für die gesamte Pädagogik ableiten. Das Schreiben wie auch die „Sprache zwingt uns [...], alles als ein Nacheinander“ (von Glasersfeld, 1987, S. 211, 1997) mitzuteilen, dennoch sind die drei zusammengehörenden Skizzen zur Pädagogik der Kommunikation, Interaktion und Interpunktion für das Mentoring im Grunde nicht einer nach dem anderen zu lesen, sondern gemeinsam und zugleich zu betrachten. In der folgenden Skizze werden sowohl Phänomene als auch die daraus geformten Deutungen und Interpretationen vorgestellt, um die Bezugsideen, Quellen und Ressourcen im Sinne einer Koordinierung und Integration von Ideen und Gedanken darzustellen. Als Ausgangspunkt werden (erneut) die Ideen von Bühler (1926, S. 485; Herv. d. Verf.) herangezogen, der drei universelle Aspekte einführt: „Erlebnis, Benehmen und Werk sind weitgehend unabhängig variabel und gehören doch irgendwie zusammen, konstruieren eine höhere Einheit.“ Um die drei wesentlichen Aspekte als Richtungen wie auch Ausrichtungen im Sinne von Weltanschauungen zu erörtern, schreibt Bühler (1926, S. 486): Angenommen, der Geograph erhält von einem unbekannten und schwer zugänglichen Gelände drei photographische Aspekte, die von verschiedenen, geographisch bekannten Standorten aufgenommen sind, so wird er über die Methode einer Synthesis dieser Aspekte nicht in Zweifel sein. Eine neue Darstellungsart, die geographische Karte zu gewinnen, ist sein Ziel; in sie wird er nach diesem oder jenem Übersetzungsverfahren die Daten der Bilder eintragen. Gelingt dies aber aus irgendeinem Grunde nicht sofort, dann könnte er immerhin vorerst in eines oder das andere der Bilder selbst schon Orientierungslinien, z. B. Nord-Südrichtung, etwas von den Längen- und Breitenwerten, Maßstäbe u. dgl. m., das heißt summarisch ausgedrückt, Daten aus dem Fond seiner übrigen Kenntnisse anbringen und es damit wissenschaftlich exakter lesbar und wertvoller machen. Vielleicht ist dies letztere ein methodisches Gleichnis für die nächsten Ziele, und die Gewinnung der Karte ein Gleichnis für das Endziel einer Synthesis der drei sehr differenten Aspekte.
Full-text available
Bu karşılaştırmalı durum çalışmasının odak noktası, okul yöneticilerinin yetkisine ilişkin öğretmenlerin kabul alanının öncüllerini ve sonuçlarını bireycilik, belirsizlikten kaçınma ve güç mesafesi toplumsal normları çerçevesinde irdelemektir. Araştırma dört farklı kıtada yer alan ve tipik durum örnekleme yöntemiyle belirlenen Almanya, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Gana ve Türkiye’de yürütülmüştür. Belirlenen ülkelerdeki araştırma süreçleri, her ülke için uygun örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen bir ortaokul ve bir lise olmak üzere iki farklı okulda gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın katılımcıları ise maksimum çeşitlilik örneklem yöntemiyle belirlenen her ülkeden 16 öğretmen olmak üzere toplam 64 öğretmenden oluşmaktadır. Veriler, araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formuyla elde edilmiş, içerik analizi tekniğiyle çözümlenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, çalışmanın yürütüldüğü dört farklı ülkede de okul müdürlerinin kullandıkları yetki türlerinin ve yönetim anlayışlarının öğretmenlerin kabul alanlarını önemli ölçüde şekillendirdiğini göstermektedir. Gelecek araştırmaların, bu çalışmanın bulgularında belirlenen ancak daha önce kabul alanı kavramı ile ilişkisi araştırılmayan motivasyon, stres, memnuniyet ile mesleki ve örgütsel bağlılık gibi kavramları ele alması önerilmektedir.
Full-text available
Dem Konzept der Konnektivierung folgend, führt der Beitrag als ein Prozess des Vernetzens und Verbindens unterschiedliche Ansätze und Konzepte zusammen, um eine Modellierung des Begleitungskonzepts des Mentorings vorzustellen. Unter Wahrung von Unterschieden wird auf Grundlage der Struktur der Feldtransformation eine Modellierung angeboten, welche eine Differenzierung unterschiedlicher Begleitungskonzepte ermöglicht. Dazu wird in dem vorliegenden Beitrag eine Tiefenstruktur als Erklärungsmodell von unterschiedlichen Ebenen des Mentorings entworfen. Mentoring wird infolge in Bezug und in Beziehung zu vielfältigen theoretischen Fundierungen (u. a. Bindungstheorie; Interpunktion) und auch zu weiteren Begleitungskonzepten (u. a. Beratung, Coaching, Tutoring) gebracht, um eine Anund Abgrenzung zu eröffnen. Vorweg erörtert der Beitrag die bisherigen wissenschaftlichen Zugänge und Bewegungen, um das Konzept des Mentorings zu beschreiben, dabei werden auch geschichtliche Bezüge herangezogen.
Das Verständnis von ‚gutem‘ Schulleitungshandeln ist im deutschsprachigen Raum aktuell geprägt durch Forschungsbefunde aus dem angloamerikanischen Raum. Dabei wird aber häufig nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt, dass es z. B. in den USA ein viel engeres Gefüge zwischen Schulleitung und Schulaufsicht gibt, das zudem durch einen eher managerial orientierten Blick auf Schulentwicklung geprägt ist. Im Beitrag wird dieses Gefüge anhand des US-Bundesstaats Kalifornien illustriert. Hierzu werden Interviewdaten mit Schulleiter*innen und der lokalen Schulaufsicht im School District herangezogen. Auf Basis der Befunde werden ‚Steuerungslücken‘ diskutiert, die sich mit Blick auf das Verhältnis zwischen Schulleitung und Schulaufsicht im deutschsprachigen Kontext ergeben.
Full-text available
Mit der Novelle zum Bundes-Schulaufsichtsgesetz 2011 wurde eine neue rechtliche Basis für das „Qualitätsmanagement“ im österreichischen Schulwesen geschaffen. In dem vorliegenden Aufsatz wird zunächst diese Gesetzesnovelle vorgestellt und analysiert. Sodann werden die Ergebnisse einer Online-Befragung von Schulleitungen steirischer Volks-, Haupt- und Neuen Mittelschulen zu ihren Einschätzungen der Initiative SQA und deren einzelner Elemente sowie zu ihren bisherigen Umsetzungserfahrungen vorgestellt und diskutiert. Dabei zeigte sich, dass eine deutliche Mehrheit von etwa zwei Drittel der befragten Schulleitungen SQA und seine Elemente „Entwicklungsplan“ sowie „Bilanz- und Zielvereinbarungsgespräch“ für sinnvoll und nützlich halten. Jene, die schon Erfahrungen mit SQA und seinen Teilelementen haben, äußern sich häufig positiver.
Full-text available
The following article Interpersonal Communication4.0 analyzes different models of communication between people and correlates them with the traditional and learning theories and with well-known counseling- and psychotherapy-theories. This approach leads on the one hand to new categorizations and function-orders of interpersonal communication in education as well as further education and on the other hand to a new integrative model of Interpersonal Communication that brings toge ther the existing models. Finally, the different approaches are related to the model of the higher forms of thinking. Im Beitrag Interpersonelle Kommunikation4.0 werden unterschiedliche Modelle der zwischenmenschlichen Kommunikation analysiert und mit den traditionellen Lehr- Lerntheorien sowie bekannten Beratungs- und Therapietheorien in Verbindung gesetzt. Diese Betrachtung führt einerseits zu neuen Kategorisierungen und Funktionsordnungen der interpersonellen Kommunikation in der Aus-, Fort- und Weiterbildung und andererseits zu einem neuen integrativen Modell der Interpersonellen Kommunikation, welches die vorhandenen Ansätze zusammenführt. Abschließend werden die unterschiedlichen Herangehensweisen noch in Beziehung gestellt zum Modell der höheren Denkformen.
Forschungen und Praxisanalysen der letzten Jahre haben gezeigt, dass Schulleitungshandeln das Niveau der SchülerInnenleistungen nicht unmittelbar beeinflusst, wohl aber durch bestimmte Maßnahmen und Haltungen durchaus wirksam sein kann.
Das schlechte Abschneiden bei TIMSS führte in Deutschland und Österreich zum Start zweier größerer Programme im Bereich des Mathematik- und Naturwissenschaftsunterrichts der Sekundarstufe. Während das deutsche Modellversuchsprogramm SINUS (1998-2003) vor allem auf eine Steigerung der Effizienz des mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Unterrichts auf der Sekundarstufe I abzielte, setzte das Projekt IMST² (2000-2004) auf der Unterrichts- und Schulebene in der Sekundarstufe II an und strebte auch auf regionaler und nationaler Ebene Impulse für das österreichische Bildungssystem an. Beide Programme wurden aufgrund ihrer positiven Entwicklung sowie der für beide Länder wenig erfreulichen Ergebnisse der PISA-Studie verlängert. In Deutschland wurden mit SINUS-Transfer zwei Verbreitungswellen (2003-2005 und 2005-2007) zur Erweiterung auf möglichst viele Schulen (inkl. Sekundarstufe II) sowie mit SINUS-Transfer Grundschule (2004-2009) ein spezielles Programm für die Primarstufe gestartet. In Österreich wurde das Unterstützungssystem IMST3 (2004-2006) mit Ausweitung auf die Sekundarstufe I begonnen, mit IMST3 Plus (2007-2009) erfolgt eine Erweiterung auf die Primarstufe und teilweise auch auf das Fach Deutsch. Derzeit sind SINUS und IMST acht bzw. sechs Jahre im Laufen. In diesem Beitrag werden erste vergleichende Reflexionen zu Ansatz, Wirkungen und Weiterentwicklungen der Programme IMST und SINUS angestellt.
This highly detailed study maps four decades of evolution of the concept of what constitutes effective school leadership. It analyses the theoretical background to these developments and advocates the utility of thinking of a ‘lean’ form of school leadership that is comparable to the concept of ‘meta-control’. A wide-ranging survey of the empirical research literature on leadership effects includes the presentation of results from earlier meta-analyses as well as a new meta-analysis on some 25 studies carried out between 2005 and 2010. This survey demonstrates that older reviews and meta-analyses were predominantly based on so-called ‘direct effect’ studies, while more recent studies have tried to quantify the indirect effects of leadership, mediated by other school variables. While acknowledging the relatively small total effect of leadership on student outcomes, the study does identify promising intermediary factors which, stimulated by specific leadership behaviours, impact on student performance. The book ends by drawing out wider implications for educational practice and policy, presented under headings such as ‘schools need leadership’, ‘the toolkit of the school leader as a meta-controller’, ‘the special case of turning around failing schools’ and ‘efficiency of school leadership’. In passing, the authors make several suggestions about potentially fruitful next steps in researching the effects of school leadership.