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).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:29:19 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
26 SES 01 B: Digitalisation & Datafication In Leadership
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
26. Educational Leadership
Paper Leading for Inclusion in a Digital Era: Lessons from School Leaders in Cyprus 1: Open University of Cyprus, Cyprus; 2: Frederick University of Cyprus, Cyprus Presenting Author:School leaders are navigating various challenges, including digital transformation and the promotion of inclusive environments in schools. Research studies have addressed these topics independently, with no study to date exploring how digital tools could reshape school leaders’ inclusive leadership practices together with the challenges they might face. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to explore how school leaders in the context of Cyprus utilize digital tools to promote inclusion in their schools. Two main research questions guided this study: RQ1: What practices do school leaders implement to use digitalisation in promoting inclusion within their schools? This study is theoretically situated at the intersection of digital school leadership, which emphasizes the use of digital tools to support learning, communication, and management (De Voto & Superfine, 2023; Krein, 2023), and social justice leadership, which focuses on inclusive practices that deconstruct systemic barriers to student participation and achievement (Ryan, 2006). Through the integration of these two theoretical perspectives, this study explores how digitalisation can either promote or hinder social justice leadership by shaping an inclusive environment, within the Cypriot context where school leadership autonomy is limited. Currently, there is no formal policy framework specifically governing the use of digital technology in schools in Cyprus. However, the Ministry of Education has shown interest in advancing digital transformation in schools by integrating digital skills training. Regarding inclusion, Cyprus’s education system follows a top-down model in which policies addressing social discrimination and inclusion are formulated by central authorities (Eurydice Network, 2023). Also, school leaders in Cyprus face complex socio-political challenges, including the recent influx of migrants and refugees from the Middle East and North Africa, which has complicated efforts to adopt and promote inclusive practices and placed additional pressures on leadership (Hajisoteriou et al., 2021). Although conducted in Cyprus, the study addresses challenges and opportunities common across Europe, including rapid demographic change due to migration (as also reflected in the study’s findings) and the pressure on school leaders, teachers, and school organizations to integrate digitalisation into their daily practice and support the European Commission’s priority of fostering digital competence through the Digital Education Action Plan (2021–2027). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Drawing on qualitative data from interviews with primary and secondary school leaders, this study adopted a semi-structured interview protocol to explore school leaders’ practices and challenges in promoting inclusion through digitalisation. This qualitative approach enabled an in-depth understanding of the lived experiences of the school leaders who took part in the study. The interview protocol, which was developed from the existing literature and subsequently pilot tested, consisted of 30 questions and was designed around the following four thematic areas: -Understanding of digitalisation and inclusion -Practices linking digital tools to inclusive leadership -Challenges in digitalising inclusive practices -Contextual factors influencing digitalisation and inclusion Stratified random sampling ensured geographical and sectoral representation. In the initial stage, 200 invitations were sent to randomly selected schools, and participation was voluntary. The final sample consisted of 43 school leaders (from primary and secondary sectors) representing all five districts of Cyprus. Each interview lasted approximately one hour and took place in the school leaders’ offices. Ethical approval was granted by the Centre for Educational Research and Evaluation in Cyprus. Participants provided informed consent, and anonymity was guaranteed. Finally, data analysis followed the three-stage model of Miles et al. (2014), which included the following steps: -Data condensation: transcription and initial coding - Data display: grouping codes into categories and constructing thematic maps -Conclusion drawing and verification: synthesising themes and linking them to the theoretical framework and research questions. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Overall, the study identified that school leaders are utilising digital tools to promote inclusion, especially in the post-pandemic era. The following practices were identified: -Enhanced communication with families through MS Teams, Viber groups, and online notices, which reduced linguistic and accessibility barriers. -Support for multilingual and struggling learners using translation technologies and digital learning materials. -Data-informed monitoring of inclusion through digital applications used to record student characteristics and monitor needs. However, the findings also indicated several challenges and systemic barriers that limited the impact of digitalisation on inclusion. The following challenges were identified: -Outdated digital infrastructure and insufficient equipment. -Centralised governance limiting school-level autonomy to tailor inclusion strategies. -Resistance to change among some educators and parents. -Lack of sustained, targeted professional learning specifically for school leaders. Overall, the findings revealed that digital tools can support inclusive and social justice-oriented leadership, even though challenges such as systemic constraints and other barriers hinder the implementation of digital tools in promoting inclusion. Consequently, digital school leadership in Cyprus remains dependent on school leaders’ personal initiatives. A holistic approach is therefore required, one that improves infrastructure, expands autonomy, and ensures continuous professional development integrating digital competence with inclusive and justice-oriented leadership across Cyprus and other parts of Europe. References De Voto, C., & Superfine, B. M. (2023). The crisis you can’t plan for: K–12 leader responses and organisational preparedness during COVID-19. School Leadership and Management, 43(4), 369–389. Eurydice. (2023). Promoting diversity and inclusion in schools in Europe. European Commission. https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/publications/promoting-diversity-and-inclusion-schools-europe. Hajisoteriou, C., Karousiou, C., & Angelides, P. (2021). Children’s voices on marginalisation and inclusion: Lessons to be learned from two decades of research in Cyprus. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(8), 1591–1615. Krein, U. (2023). What’s your take on school leadership and digitalization? A systematic review of publications from the last 20 years. International Journal of Leadership in Education. Miles M B, Huberman A. M, and Saldaña J (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(1), 3–17. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper From Leadership to Innovation: Team Learning as the Pathway Linking Principals' Technology Leadership to Teacher Innovativeness 1: yozgat bozok üniversitesi, Turkey (Türkiye); 2: Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Presenting Author:The contemporary educational landscape necessitates a strategic focus on teachers’ innovative work behaviour as a cornerstone of school improvement (Hosseini & Haghighi Shirazi, 2021). However, fostering such innovative agency requires a multifaceted shift away from conventional school leadership paradigms, rendering technology integration into schools as an enhancement in the school’s innovation capacity rather than a peripheral technical concern (Fischer‐Schöneborn et al., 2025). As a matter of fact, traditional leadership models have largely framed technology as a technical tool for achieving predefined school goals (McLeod & Richardson, 2011). Yet, unprecedented advances in computing and artificial intelligence technologies promise a more holistic transition towards technology leadership that reshapes learning and working practices (Keane et al., 2020). While the integration of technology-oriented aspirations, policy visions, and reform targets into school leadership is not a new phenomenon, contemporary technology leadership is distinguished by a move away from the narrow pursuit of the technology-fluent principal (McLeod, 2021). Instead, a growing body of scholarship emphasize school leaders’ roles as cultural and transformative agents who actively engage teachers in collaborative work and shape collectively shared perceptions of school culture (Banoğlu et al., 2023). This cultural transformation is enabled by the proliferation of virtual tools and school management systems, alongside the strategic alignment of digital platforms with school objectives (Richardson et al., 2021). Rather than treating technology as a supplementary instrument, school leaders are increasingly expected to strategically orchestrate digital platforms within leadership processes to enhance coordination and communication across distributed teams (Dexter & Barton, 2021). Within this context, collaborative learning and working practices gain particular prominence, as team learning orientations are actively cultivated in schools (Dexter & Barton, 2021; Hauge et al., 2014). Through clear, consistent, and authentic communication, educational technologies can foster cohesion among team members (Höddinghaus et al., 2023). This capacity for team management enables school leaders to support teachers’ knowledge sharing, collective problem-solving, and innovation in virtual platforms (Liu & Sun, 2024). When complemented by other strategic sources of teacher professional development and adequate policy support, technology leadership strengthens teacher collaboration and innovation capacity within schools (Deogaonkar, 2025). Building on this perspective, the present study proposes that principals’ technology leadership practices play a pivotal role in fostering teachers’ team learning orientations and innovative work behaviour simultaneously. Importantly, we argue that this relationship is not limited to direct effects but also operates indirectly through the enhancement of team learning among teachers, which subsequently promotes teacher innovativeness at individual and school level. By strategically integrating digital technologies into teachers’ professional practices, principals can facilitate continuous interaction and collective problem-solving (Dexter & Barton, 2021). Moreover, by encouraging systematic exchanges of knowledge and pedagogical practices, school principals can cultivate a psychologically safe and collaborative climate that supports team learning and, in turn, teacher innovation (Liu & Sun, 2024). Adequate digital resources can strengthen teachers’ collaborative learning and innovation, whereas insufficient infrastructure may weaken the influence of technology leadership on innovative work behaviour (Anderson & Dexter, 2005). Within this mediated relationship, schools’ technological infrastructure plays a crucial moderating role by shaping how effectively technology leadership practices are enacted. Accordingly, this study addresses a multilevel moderated mediation model involving principals’ technology leadership, teachers’ team learning orientations, teachers’ innovative work behaviour, and school technological infrastructure. The following research questions guide the study:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a quantitative research design using a multilevel moderated mediation analytical approach. The population comprises teachers working in public school in Türkiye during the 2025–2026 academic year. To ensure a sample that adequately represents the country’s geographical and socio-economic diversity, a multistage stratified sampling strategy will be employed. Data will be collected from approximately 900 teachers across 30 public secondary schools. Four validated instruments are used in the study. Team learning is measured using the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (Watkins & Marsick, 1997). Principals’ technology leadership is assessed using the Technology Leadership Competency Scale for Educational Administrators (Banoğlu, 2012). Teachers’ innovative work behaviour is measured using the relevant subscale from the TALIS 2018 survey, administered in Turkey. Finally, the adequacy of schools’ technological infrastructure is assessed using an item adapted from TALIS 2018 (i.e. “Did a lack of physical learning resources hinder school instruction?”). All instruments demonstrate sound psychometric properties in their original validation studies. The data collection is currently underway. Ethical approval has been obtained from the university’s institutional review board, and the study is scheduled to be completed by June 2026. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The proposed multilevel moderated mediation model shifts the focus of technology leadership from individual school leadership actions and corresponding teacher behaviors to collective/team-based professional learning groups as perceived by individual teachers and also across schools. Crucially, the study highlights how the effectiveness of technology leadership in fostering teacher innovativeness is contingent upon teacher collaboration and schools’ technological infrastructure. The anticipated findings are expected to demonstrate that principals’ technology leadership practices enhance teachers’ innovative behaviour both directly and indirectly through strengthened team learning orientations, while also revealing the boundary school’s technology infrastructure conditions under which these effects are amplified or constrained. By integrating technology leadership, team learning, and teacher innovativeness aspects, this study is expected to contribute theoretically by refining technology leadership as a relational and context-sensitive construct, and practically by offering evidence-based guidance for school leaders and policymakers seeking to leverage digital capacity to promote collaborative learning and sustained teacher innovation in K-12 school settings. References Anderson, R.E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04269517 Banoğlu, K. (2012). Technology leadership competency scale for educational administrators: Development, validity, and reliability study. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(3), 43-65. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/92220 Banoğlu, K., Vanderlinde, R., Çetin, M., & Aesaert, K. (2023). Role of principals technology leadership practices in building a learning organization culture in public K-12 schools. Journal of School Leadership, 33(1), 66-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/10526846221134010 Deogaonkar, A. (2025). Digital leadership, AI readiness and strategic resource allocation in education: a configurational approach to post-pandemic transformation. International Journal of Educational Management, 39(5), 1105–1119. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-06-2025-0438 Dexter, S., & Barton, E.A. (2021). The development and impact of team-based school technology leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-12-2020-0260 Fischer‐Schöneborn, S., Brown, C., Aydin, B., MacGregor, S., & Pietsch, M. (2025). ICT knowledge absorptive capacity: A critical factor for technology integration in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 57(1), 138–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13608 Hauge, T.E., Norenes, S.O., & Vedøy, G. (2014). School leadership and educational change: Tools and practices in shared school leadership development. Journal of Educational Change, 15(4), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-014-9228-y Hosseini, S., & Haghighi Shirazi, Z.R. (2021). Towards teacher innovative work behavior: A conceptual model. Cogent Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1869364 Höddinghaus, M., Nohe, C., & Hertel, G. (2024). Leadership in virtual work settings: what we know, what we do not know, and what we need to do. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 33(2), 188–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2023.2250079 Keane, T., Boden, M., Chalmers, C., & Williams, M. (2020). Effective principal leadership influencing technology innovation in the classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 5321–5338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10217-0 Liu, Q., & Sun, Y. (2024). The impact of collaborative atmosphere on innovative work behavior of college teachers, North China. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1497503. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1497503 McLeod, S. (2021). Commentary – Why aren’t more educational leadership scholars researching technology? Journal of Educational Administration, 59(3), 392–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-06-2021-263 Mcleod, S., & Richardson, J.W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 216-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461102100204 Richardson, J.W., Watts, J., & Sterrett, J. (2021). Challenges of being a digitally savvy principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(3), 318–334. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2020-0215 Watkins, K.E., & Marsick, V.J. (1997). Dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Partners for the Learning Organization. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Leadership of Schools in Digitalization: A Systematic Literature Review East China Normal University, China, People's Republic of Presenting Author:The global educational landscape is currently undergoing a profound transformation driven by the wave of digitalization. International organizations such as UNESCO and the OECD explicitly advocate for the integration of digital technologies into education systems, which has prompted numerous countries to implement national digital agendas aimed at reshaping pedagogical practices and administrative processes (Pietsch & Mah, 2024; Ruloff & Petko, 2025). In this rapidly evolving environment, school administrators play a pivotal role in driving digital transformation. They act as the primary agents responsible for navigating the complexities of technological integration and aligning institutional goals with external digital demands (Navaridas-Nalda et al., 2020; Asante & Novak, 2024). Consequently, leadership styles serve as critical levers for fostering organizational change and facilitating technology adoption. Effective leadership is essential not only for building a supportive digital culture but also for overcoming resistance and ensuring the sustainable implementation of digital tools in teaching and learning (Ghamrawi & Tamim, 2023; Liu, 2025). Despite the recognized importance of leadership in the digital era, the current literature lacks an integrated synthesis of how leadership styles function within this specific context. First, there is a need to clarify the evolution of leadership styles under digitalization. While existing research identifies various approaches such as transformational leadership, distributed leadership, and e-leadership, a cohesive overview of how these styles have adapted to the demands of digital transformation remains fragmented (Pietsch & Mah, 2024; Ghamrawi & Tamim, 2023). Second, the predictors that explain why certain leadership styles emerge in particular contexts are not fully systematized. These predictors encompass individual factors such as the leader's digital competence and vision, as well as contextual factors including school infrastructure, culture, and policy pressures (Ruloff & Petko, 2025; Chen & Kouhsari, 2025). Finally, the comparative impacts of these leadership styles on key stakeholders require further examination. Although studies highlight outcomes such as teacher digital acceptance and student performance, a comprehensive comparison of how different styles influence these results is currently missing (Asante & Novak, 2024; Kilcoyne, 2024). This systematic literature review aims to bridge these gaps by offering theoretical, empirical, and practical contributions. Theoretically, it integrates diverse leadership styles within the specific framework of digital transformation, providing a structured understanding of leadership in technological contexts. Empirically, the review synthesizes cross-context evidence to identify patterns and discrepancies in current research. Practically, the findings provide actionable insights for school leaders seeking to enhance their digital strategies, policymakers designing support systems, and training programs aiming to develop future-ready educational administrators To address the aforementioned issues, this review focuses on the following three research questions: 1. What are the trends of leadership in the context of digitalization? 2. What are the predictors of leadership, including both individual and contextual factors? 3. What are the key outcomes of leadership in digitalization? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employed a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach to identify, filter, and synthesize published research. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we defined a clear search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria to address the research questions. We focused on literature published over the past 15 years (2011–2025) to ensure the inclusion of contemporary and pioneering insights. Based on established scholarly recommendations, high-quality data sources are essential; thus, we selected five globally recognized databases: EBSCO, Web of Science, Scopus, Taylor & Francis, and IEEE. The final data collection was completed on August 27, 2025, yielding 1,658 initial records. The screening process was executed in three distinct stages: Stage 1: We removed 623 non-journal articles (e.g., conference papers and reviews), 106 non-English articles, and 112 duplicates, leaving 817 papers. Stage 2: To ensure thematic relevance, we screened titles and abstracts. We excluded articles focused on corporate leadership or those unrelated to digitalization and education. In total, 691 articles were removed, leaving 126 papers for full-text assessment. Stage 3: A full-text review was conducted to confirm that the studies were empirical and specifically situated within the context of leadership in the digitalized educational sector. After removing 27 non-relevant and 57 non-empirical studies, 42 articles were retained for the final review. We utilized content analysis to analyze the selected literature. The first and second authors independently coded the articles based on the theoretical framework. Meaningful units regarding leadership styles, school levels, research methods, and sample sizes were systematically marked. Subsequently, codes with similar meanings were merged into broader categories. To ensure rigor, inter-rater reliability was calculated, yielding a score exceeding 95%. Coding differences were addressed through deliberative discussions and detailed reviews of the original sentences to ensure absolute consistency in the final results. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings 1. Evolution and Trends of Leadership Styles The review reveals a significant surge in digital-oriented leadership research post-2020, driven largely by the COVID-19 pandemic. While "Digital Leadership" has become the dominant style, classic and school-specific models remain present but secondary. Most research focuses on higher education and high schools, primarily employing quantitative methods with small-to-medium sample sizes. 2. Predictors of Effective Leadership Key predictors are categorized into individual and contextual factors. Individual drivers include digital literacy, visionary orientation, and openness to innovation. Contextually, digital infrastructure availability, policy reforms, and a collaborative school culture are essential for enabling leadership effectiveness. 3. Outcomes and Challenges Digital leadership significantly enhances teaching effectiveness, professional growth, and administrative efficiency. However, critical challenges persist, including leaders' skill gaps, teacher resistance to change, insufficient infrastructure, and the widening digital divide among students. The findings suggest that sustainable transformation requires balancing technological adoption with emotional support and structural readiness. References Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Revista Espanola de Cardiologia (English Ed.), 74(9), 790–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2021.07.010 Pietsch, M., & Mah, D.-K. (2025). Leading the AI transformation in schools: It starts with a digital mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 73(2), 1043–1069. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10439-w Chen, J., & Kouhsari, M. (2025). Demystifying the personal and social forces behind school digital transformation: An analysis of the job demands and resources theory through school leaders. Computers & Education, 228(null), 1–19. Willermark, S., Gellerstedt, M., & Nilsson, P. (2024). Surviving or thriving? Exploring school leaders’ perception of initiated digital transformation. School Leadership & Management, 44(3), 228–250. Okunlola, J. O., & Naicker, S. R. (2025). Principals’ Digital Leadership Competencies in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Teachers’ Perspectives. EDUCATION SCIENCES, 15(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060656 Jing, M., Guo, Z., Wu, X., Yang, Z., & Wang, X. (2025). Higher Education Digital Academic Leadership: Perceptions and Practices from Chinese University Leaders. EDUCATION SCIENCES, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050606 | ||