Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
26 SES 06 A: AI, Digital Leadership & Technology Innovation
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
26. Educational Leadership
Paper Leading Culture Online: Exploring the Lived Experiences of UK Online School Leaders Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom Presenting Author:Online-only schooling for children can be seen as a response to polycrisis, albeit one shrouded in scepticism and vague policy. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, during which school leaders were forced to rapidly navigate leadership and culture in virtual spaces, most education systems globally returned to “normal”. However, a small number of entrepreneurs from a range of backgrounds identified an opportunity to launch or expand online learning offers for families who no longer felt that mainstream education was the best solution. Virtual schools which supplement or enhance brick-and-mortar provision are not new; such programmes continue to grow across Europe, allowing for greater flexibility and breadth of study. The number of schools delivering a full, live school timetable entirely online remains low, with around 25 such schools currently operating in the UK (Hill, 2024). Since 2020, research into online learning has expanded rapidly, focusing largely on technology, student wellbeing, and learning loss. Far fewer studies have considered leadership or culture, particularly within the emerging sector of online-only schooling. As a result, the personal leadership experiences and cultural sensemaking of leaders working in these environments remain largely unexamined. My research uses interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) to explore how leaders experience the work of leading an online-only school and how they seek to build school culture in a fully virtual space. IPA enables in-depth analysis of lived experience, treating each participant as a unique case. As an exploratory study, this research contributes an initial account of contemporary leadership and culture in UK-based online schools, foregrounding what it means to lead within these environments. This person-centred, experience-led approach allows insight into the processes and practices that may contribute to effective leadership and culture-building in virtual settings. This paper presents findings from my PhD research, based on semi-structured interviews with five online school leaders, and addresses three research questions: RQ1: How do leaders in online-only schools in the UK understand “leadership” and “culture”? The personal experiential themes (PETs) identified for each participant reflect the challenges and diversities across this emerging field. These include the emotional labour associated with leading in an isolated digital context; the need to “lead with two brains” as both educator and entrepreneur; and anxieties around decision-making, often mitigated through deliberate virtual collaboration as a form of community-building. Despite this variation, recurring experiences emerge, particularly around sensemaking (Weick, 1995; Hernes, 2008) and emotional labour (Hochschild, 1983), which underpin many aspects of virtual leadership practice. The exploration of the individual experience can be, therefore, connected using group experiential themes (GETs), which again show considerable convergence and divergence in areas including perspectives on leadership, the influence of historical experiences on their practice, and building connectivity and culture in virtual space. By foregrounding lived experience, this paper offers new insights into the processes, practices, and possibilities of leadership and culture in online-only schools, and considers how the sector may evolve in an increasingly digital future. By steering away from large-scale data and broad policy analysis, the study also proposes a direction for future research into online educational leadership that is human-centric, experience-led, and privileges practitioner knowledge. In a system positioned as an alternative to mainstream schooling, this paper argues that such an approach is not only viable, but preferable—both within this field and beyond. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Five participants took part in the research study, each of whom self-identified as a leader within an online school headquartered in the UK. Each of the five participants worked in different schools with drastically different backgrounds, job titles and work roles, despite their connected fields. Two one-hour semi-structured interviews were carried out with each participant via Microsoft Teams; one broadly centred on the theme of leadership, and the second on culture. The interviews used a common prompt sheet across all participants, with additional questions and exploration prompted by the answers provided. Each interview was recorded, manually transcribed and then analysed using the seven steps for interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) (Smith, Flowers and Larkin, 2022). IPA centres on individual experience, and this idiographic approach allows for the deep analysis of small numbers of cases to capture both similarity and difference between participants. Additionally, IPA is explicitly hermeneutic, relying on the researcher’s interpretative engagement with participants’ accounts; this is important because it acknowledges that meaning is not simply extracted from experience but co-constructed through a reflexive, double hermeneutic process as the researcher makes sense of participants making sense of their world. The transcripts were then uploaded to NVivo. Each participant’s interviews were analysed, with over 2000 annotations and 1005 initial experiential statements across the ten transcripts. These were further refined to 242 final experiential statements, grouped into 25 PETs (between 4 and 6 per participant). Finally, 4 GETs were created, demonstrating strong connections but also considerable difference across the participant group. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This research has highlighted both the variation and similarities in the ways that online-only school leaders experience leadership and culture building in virtual space. The PETs showed considerable variation between participants, with, for example, varying emphasis on values as a driver of culture. The 4 GETs further exemplify both the convergence and divergence of experience in this study. One such theme, centred on emotional labour and relationship building, highlighted how communication and feedback are central to effective virtual leadership, alongside the need to be intentional and creative about how this is enacted online. However, participants diverged in terms of the impact of such labour on themselves, with responses varying from contentment and joy, to exhaustion, sacrifice, and fear. The idiographic nature of this work demonstrates the importance of sharing and exploring individual lived experiences, particularly in a big data-driven context where nuance can be lost at the expense of broader policy and analysis. References Hernes, T., 2008. Understanding organization as process: Theory for a tangled world. London: Routledge. Hill, J., 2024. Can online schools solve the post-Covid attendance crisis? Schoolsweek. Available online at: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/can-online-schools-solve-the-post-covid-attendance-crisis/ [Accessed 30.2.24] Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. and Larkin, M., 2022. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. 2nd edition. London, SAGE Publications Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Navigating the Unknown: Educational Leadership Development Needs During AI Transformation in Higher Education Breda University of applied sciences, Belgium Presenting Author:The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into higher education demands fundamental curriculum redesign and new approaches to teaching, learning, and assessment. However, educational managers responsible for curriculum development and quality assurance are often asked to lead this transformation without prior access to dedicated educational leadership development (Debowski and Blake, 2004; Scott et al., 2008). This paper examines an under-recognized capability development need among educational managers during an institution-wide AI integration initiative at a Dutch university of applied sciences, where the conceptual frameworks needed to articulate support requests had not yet been made available to them, a pattern with significant implications for the implementation of educational innovation. In 2025, Breda University of Applied Sciences (BUAS) initiated a comprehensive AI integration programme, transitioning from traditional teaching to AI-enhanced education. This transformation required developing a vision for teaching and learning with AI, creating frameworks for AI-proof assessment, and implementing academy-specific curriculum changes. Academy-specific sessions were organized with management teams and staff responsible for curriculum and educational quality to guide implementation. Despite having a clear institutional vision, comprehensive frameworks, and dedicated support structures, a striking challenge emerged. Educational managers encountered a recognised metacognitive challenge described in the self-assessment literature (Kruger and Dunning, 1999): without prior exposure to specific educational leadership concepts, it was difficult to articulate which forms of support would be most useful. This became visible when facilitators proposed possible areas for assistance and participants worked to identify which interventions would best address their challenges. Rather than reflecting change resistance or lack of motivation, this pointed to an opportunity to introduce the conceptual frameworks that help leaders identify and name their own development needs. Several capability areas emerged as central to successful curriculum transformation: curriculum design principles for AI-enhanced learning, quality indicators for new pedagogical approaches, facilitation of teacher professional development, leadership of organizational change processes (Fullan, 2007), and translation of institutional vision into concrete curriculum decisions. Across these areas, educational managers identified a need for further support in connecting institutional frameworks to practical implementation. This is particularly challenging because educational managers occupy a critical strategic position as change agents within higher education institutions (Scott et al., 2008). They bridge institutional vision and frontline teaching practice, coordinate curriculum teams, ensure educational quality standards, and make day-to-day decisions that determine whether institutional innovations succeed or fail. Educational managers translate strategy into curriculum reality, a role for which formal preparation in educational leadership, curriculum theory, pedagogical innovation, and change management is rarely provided. BUAS currently lacks formal educational leadership development programmes specifically designed for educational managers and curriculum coordinators. While substantial attention goes to individual teacher professional development through didactic competency programmes and AI training courses, comparable structured development for those coordinating and managing educational programmes is still emerging. Addressing this represents an important opportunity for institutional capacity building (Debowski and Blake, 2004). The literature on higher education leadership has examined transformational leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Hoch et al., 2018), change management (Fullan, 2007), and institutional innovation. However, limited research specifically investigates the educational leadership knowledge and competencies required by programme managers and curriculum coordinators, the "middle layer" of educational leadership (Scott et al., 2008). Even less attention has been paid to the specific development needs of these leaders (Leithwood et al., 2020). This study investigates the nature and scope of educational leadership development needs among educational managers during major educational transformation. Through qualitative research, we aim to make visible a previously under-recognized dimension of institutional capacity. This work provides a foundation for developing appropriate interventions to build educational leadership capacity in higher education institutions Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employs a qualitative research design combining observational data from institutional AI implementation sessions with semi-structured interviews to investigate educational leadership knowledge gaps among curriculum managers. The research takes place at Breda University of Applied Sciences (BUAS), a specialized institution in the Netherlands with approximately 7,000 students across 28 bachelor's and master's programmes organized into five academies. Phase 1: Observational Data (Completed) During early 2026, BUAS conducted academy-specific implementation sessions for its AI integration programme. These sessions brought together educational managers, curriculum coordinators, and educationalists from each academy to support the translation of institutional AI vision and frameworks into programme-level implementation. The research team participated as facilitators and internal consultants, documenting interaction patterns, questions raised (and critically, not raised), participant responses to proposed support interventions, and evidence of knowledge gaps. Detailed field notes captured specific instances where participants were "unskilled and unaware" (Kruger and Dunning, 1999), situations where they could not identify what assistance they needed, did not recognize relevant educational leadership concepts when introduced, or could not formulate questions despite clear implementation challenges. Field notes also documented facilitator interventions required to make implicit knowledge needs explicit. Phase 2: Semi-Structured Interviews (Ongoing) Following the initial implementation phase, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. The purposive sample will include educational managers from each academy (n≈8-12). Interview protocols will explore: (1) participants' self-assessed educational leadership competencies and perceived knowledge gaps, (2) specific challenges encountered during AI curriculum integration that they initially could not articulate, (3) what educational leadership knowledge would have helped them navigate transformation more effectively, and (4) their current conceptual understanding of educational leadership as distinct from general management. Data Analysis Observational field notes will be analyzed thematically to identify patterns in knowledge gaps, questions not asked, concepts not recognized, and instances of unconscious incompetence. Interview transcripts will undergo thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase approach. Coding will focus on: types of educational leadership knowledge gaps, manifestations of unconscious incompetence, differences between conscious and unconscious knowledge deficits, and participant conceptualizations of their own roles and required capabilities. Ethical Considerations The study follows institutional ethical guidelines. Participants will provide informed consent with clear explanation that participation is voluntary and confidential. Researchers' roles as internal consultants require careful reflexive practice to avoid bias. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This research addresses an important but largely under-recognized dimension of higher education: educational managers responsible for implementing curriculum innovation are often asked to do so without prior access to the educational leadership concepts that would help them identify their own development needs. Our preliminary findings from AI implementation sessions at BUAS illustrate the metacognitive challenge described by Kruger and Dunning (1999), and suggest that motivation, resources, and support structures alone are unlikely to be sufficient without targeted leadership development. This phenomenon has profound implications for how institutions approach educational change. Traditional change management (Fullan, 2007) assumes that stakeholders can identify obstacles, articulate needs, and request appropriate support. Our findings suggest that for educational managers without prior formal preparation in educational leadership, these assumptions warrant revisiting. Support for curriculum design principles, educational change processes, and the framing of implementation challenges is most useful when paired with introduction of the underlying concepts themselves. This knowledge gap is particularly challenging given the pivotal role educational managers play in translating institutional vision into teaching practice (Scott et al., 2008; Leithwood et al., 2020). They make daily decisions affecting curriculum quality, teaching innovation, and student learning, often without the dedicated educational leadership preparation. Establishing structured educational leadership development for this population represents an important strengthening of institutional capacity for change (Debowski and Blake, 2004). This study makes visible a previously under-recognized dimension of institutional capacity and provides empirical evidence of its nature and scope. Our findings point to a clear opportunity for structured educational leadership development for programme managers and curriculum coordinators. Future research should investigate what specific educational leadership competencies are most critical. The second phase of our research programme will develop and test an educational leadership framework (Vilkinas and Cartan, 2006) tailored to this population's unique needs and context. References .Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1994) Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. Debowski S and Blake V (2004) The developmental needs of higher education academic leaders in encouraging effective teaching and learning. In: Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2004. Melbourne: AUQA. Fullan M (2007) The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Hoch JE, Bommer WH, Dulebohn JH and Wu D (2018) Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management 44(2): 501–529. Kruger J and Dunning D (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(6): 1121–1134. Leithwood K, Harris A and Hopkins D (2020) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management 40(1): 5–22. Scott G, Coates H and Anderson M (2008) Learning Leaders in Times of Change: Academic Leadership Capabilities for Australian Higher Education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Vilkinas T and Cartan G (2006) The integrated competing values framework: Its spatial configuration. Journal of Management Development 25(6): 505–521. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Enhancement-based Learning Project: As A Prototype Iteration, Creating Future-ready, Inclusive Leaders The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R. (China) Presenting Author:This study addresses the gap in research on how school leaders use an iterative approach to develop educational prototypes by examining the Enhancement-based Learning (EBL) Project, a prototype employing iterative cycles. The research investigates the leadership practice of school leaders developing a prototype educational tool, examines their use of iterative approaches to refine it, and analyzes how this developmental process cultivates a future-ready and inclusive leadership mindset. Using unobtrusive qualitative methods, this developmental research study focuses on 21 schools, with a total of 63 school leaders, of a 15-month leadership development programme. Identifying the scarce research on using prototypes by leaders in the educational field, the main purpose of this research is to explore how school leaders develop EBL, a prototype involving iteration cycles, and how this process creates future-ready, inclusive school leaders. Based on this research statement, we developed the following research questions -
This study is based on the 15-month leadership development programme JC InnoPower Education Fellowship, initiated and funded by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust (HKJC). It was co-created with the Education University of Hong Kong (EdUHK) and offered in collaboration with the Centre to Support Excellence in Teaching (CSET) at Stanford Graduate School of Education (Walker & Quong, 2025a, 2025b). The programme aims to provide school leaders with broadened exposure and change leadership skills for the delivery of future-ready and inclusive education in Hong Kong. For coaching and guiding support, the programme brings together a pool of expert who are either new, existing, or recently retired experienced school principals, in a learning network. Utilizing the leadership development programme and guidance of the expert educators, the schools are required to create and launch a project termed EBL, which aims to support schools’ future-ready development by enhancing certain aspects of school operation (Walker & Quong, 2025d). The EBL project is one of the main outputs of this leadership development programme. Our study focuses on school leaders adopting this educational prototype that utilizes iteration process to enhance schools’ outcomes. Research shows meaningful learning and skill acquisition involve repeated attempts, active idea generation, and evaluation processes; a single attempt typically does not produce substantial learning gains (Ericsson et al., 2006; Schmidt & Bjork, 1992; Bjork & Bjork, 2011; Metcalfe & Kornell, 2005). EBL follows an iterative process where each "EBL iteration" (Walker & Quong, 2025d) begins with defining the project’s purpose. School leaders then gather stakeholder narratives to identify improvement areas, analyze them to frame their project, and develop change strategies for future readiness and inclusion. They implement these strategies with support from the school community and evaluate their effectiveness. Since EBL is iterative, squads refine and enhance their approach in subsequent cycles, following a build-test-refine process. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This was a developmental research study (Richey, 1997; Richey & Nelson, 1996) using unobtrusive qualitative methods and a natural work environment, i.e. the school setting, for establishing the EBL projects by the participating school leaders of the programme. Developmental research is a powerful methodology for creating innovative educational solutions (Richey et al., 2004), and the entire methodology is built on the principle of continuous improvement through repeated cycles of design, evaluation, and revision (Richey & Klein, 2007), which relates to the purpose of this study of how school leaders develop an innovative prototype educational tool involving iterative cycles. The study employs unobtrusive methods—content analysis and observation—to collect data without direct participant interaction, aligning with a Type 2 developmental research design. These methods are especially useful for time-constrained or sensitive participants, such as school leaders. Examples include analyzing documents, digital footprints (e.g., audio-visual records), and observational data (Webb et al., 1966; Kellehear, 2020). The samples of this study are the schools participating in the leadership development programme. The programme includes 21 Hong Kong local school and their leadership team, comprising the principal and two school leaders, a total of 63 participants. A three-way unobtrusive combination of data collection was used for this study, involving content analysis, observations, and examining digital submissions. Content analyzed were the EBL projects submitted by the 21 schools following each iteration in the programme and expert educators on the EBL projects; observations were carried out during their meetings arranged by the programme; and review of digital/ video submission of EBL projects by school leaders and teachers at the end of the programme. The research being a qualitative developmental research study using unobtrusive data collection, data analysis is interpretive, focused on identifying patterns, themes, and underlying rationales related to the conceptual framework of forming EBL projects. Guided by the research questions, the focus was to identify the common leadership practices used by school leaders to develop the prototype educational tool using iterative approach and understand how this entire process helped their leadership mindset to be future-ready and inclusive without directly interviewing. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study focused on the iterative EBL projects developed by the school leaders participating in the leadership development programme. Therefore, the first two research questions, on how school leaders developed the EBL, are answered through focusing on the emerging common practices used by the school leaders under “Leadership shaping the iterative prototype”. Through the iterative cycle, the following emerging common leadership practices utilized by the school leaders to develop their EBL project were identified, such as - embracing technology integration across the curriculum, fostering collaborative practices and culture, focusing on student whole-person development, fostering innovative communities of practice, leveraging external resources (e.g., NGO), and engaging external stakeholders in the school development process. Furthermore, the third research question, which explored how the entire process helped their mindset become future-ready and inclusive, was identified by focusing on the changes in the leadership technique during the iterative cycle of EBL development; explained under “Iterative prototype shaping the leaders”. Our analysis of the findings revealed co-leading, participation and brokering are integral to school leadership for developing the prototype educational tool. School leaders emphasized drawing together a range of individuals and agencies to make the best resources available (Bryk et al., 2015). Through this iterative process, leadership thinking underwent a significant shift: from focusing on physical infrastructure to developing adaptive “mental software”—the core beliefs, skills, and traits essential for innovation. This transformation highlights the importance of internal capabilities and mindsets that empower leaders with adaptability and resilience (Bell, 2010). School leaders promoted shared decision-making, empowered teachers and students, and responded to the evolving needs of their communities (Thomas, 2000). This transformation aligns with contemporary leadership paradigms—emphasizing inclusive and participatory practices—thereby fostering a culture that recognizes diverse perspectives and integrates them into decision-making processes (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). References Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the Real World, 4, 56–64. Bell, L. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415 Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press. Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Hoffman, R. R., & Feltovich, P. J. (2006). The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge University Press. Kellehear, A. (2020). The unobtrusive researcher: A guide to methods. Routledge. Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). The delay-of-grain effect in judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(2), 357–362. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196331 Richey, R.C., & Nelson, W. (1996). Developmental research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1213-1245). New York: Simon & Schust Richey, R.C. (1997) Research on instructional development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 91-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299732 Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Nelson, W. A. (2004). Developmental research: Studies of instructional design and development. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp.1 099–1130). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Richey, R.C., & Klein, J.D. (2007). Design and Development Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203826034 Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social-cognitive theory. In D. H. Schunk, J. Meece, & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Motivation in education: Theory, research, and practice (6th ed., pp. 15–35). Pearson. Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. The Autodesk Foundation. Walker, A. & Quong, T. (2025a). JC InnoPower: Overview. Programme Booklet. Hong Kong: Education University of Hong Kong. Walker, A. & Quong, T. (2025b). JC InnoPower: Reporting and Celebrating. Programme Booklet. Hong Kong: Education University of Hong Kong. Walker, A. & Quong, T. (2025d). JC InnoPower: Enhancement-Based Learning. Programme Booklet. Hong Kong: Education University of Hong Kong. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Rand Mcnally. | ||