School Management Activities in a Digital Age: An International Comparison Based on ICILS 2018

Abstract

Principals have an important role to play in the implementation of digitalization in schools. They can be seen as role models for teachers with regard to information and communication technology (ICT) usage. Furthermore, there is nowadays a solid research linking educational leadership and management indirectly to student achievement. However, there is a lack of studies on the specific ICT usage of principals and the relationship with students' ICT skills. Against this background, our research aimed to find out whether different clusters of principals in Chile, Denmark, Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the United States can be identified on the basis of their leadership and management activities using ICT and whether there are differences in the distribution of the identified clusters across the countries. A latent class analysis was conducted using the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2018 school questionnaire data. Across the five countries, three different clusters were identified based on principals’ activities using ICT. Proportions of principals’ distribution across the clusters varied significantly between the countries. In addition, it was investigated whether the clusters are related to students' computer and information literacy (CIL) using the means of student's scores in the computer based CIL test. No significant relation was found either when the five countries were considered together or individually.

Keywords

• ICILS
• Latent Class Analysis
• secondary school
• school management
• digitalization

References

1. Akaike, H. (1974). A New Look At The Statistical Model Identification. In: Parzen, E., Tanabe, K., & Kitagawa, G. (Eds.), Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike (pp. 215–222). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_16 Akhtar, S. (2022). Exploring the school stakeholders’ understanding and knowledge about information and communication technology and its application in improving management functions: a comparative study in the urban context. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 18(2), 143–162.
2. Allen, N., Grigsby, B., & Peters, M. L. (2015). Does leadership matter? Examining the Relationship Among Transformational Leadership, School Climate, and Student Achievement. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 10(2), 1–22.
3. Apsorn, A., Sisan, B., & Tungkunanan, P. (2019). Information and Communication Technology Leadership of School Administrators in Thailand. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 639–650. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12240a
4. Arham, A. F., Norizan, N. S., Arham, A. F., Hasbullah, N. N., Malan, I. N. B., & Alwi, S. (2022). Initializing The Need For Digital Leadership: A Meta Analysis Review On Leadership Styles In Educational Sector. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(8), 2755–2773.
5. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. Free Press.
6. Baydar, F. (2022). The Role of Educational Leaders in the Development of Students’ Technology Use and Digital Citizenship. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.52380/mojet.2022.10.1.367
7. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
8. Caeli, E. N., & Bundsgaard, J. (2020). Computational thinking in compulsory education: A survey study on initiatives and conceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 551–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09694-z

9. Daniëls, E., Hondeghem, A., & Dochy, F. (2019). A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational Research Review, 27, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003
10. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut (2006). Skoleledelse i folkeskolen [School leadership in primary schools]. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut.
11. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut (2017). Pædagogisk ledelse [Pedagogical leadership]. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut.
12. Dexter, S. (2018). The Role of Leadership for Information Technology in Education: Systems of Practices. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 483–498). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71054-9_32
13. Dexter, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2020). What does technology integration research tell us about the leadership of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1668316
14. Eickelmann, B., Bos, W., Gerick, J., Goldhammer, F., Schaumburg, H., Schwippert, K., Senkbeil, M., & Vahrenhold, J. (Eds.). (2019). ICILS 2018 #Deutschland Computer- und informationsbezogene Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im zweiten internationalen Vergleich und Kompetenzen im Bereich Computational Thinking [ICILS 2018 #Germany Computer and information-related competencies of students in the second international comparison and competencies in computational thinking]. Waxmann. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:18166
15. Eickelmann, B., & Vennemann, M. (2017). Teachers‘ attitudes and beliefs regarding ICT in teaching and learning in European countries. European Educational Research Journal, 16(6), 733–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117725899
16. Fiş Erümit, S., & Keleş, E. (2021). Lessons from K-12 Education in Asia-Pacific Countries Successful in the PISA: ICT Integration Dimension. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 11(3), 452–481. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.940080
17. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Duckworth, D. (2020). Preparing for life in a digital world. IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. IEA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38781-5
18. Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why Teachers Must Become Change Agents. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 12–17. Geiser, C. (2013). Data Analysis with Mplus. The Guilford Press.
19. Gerick, J. (2018). School level characteristics and students’ CIL in Europe – A latent class analysis approach. Computers & Education, 120, 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.013
20. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2023). Fortschrittsbericht DigitalPakt Schule 2022–2023 [Progress report DigitalPakt School 2022–2023]. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. https://www.digitalpaktschule.de/files/Fortschrittsbericht_DigitalPakt_Schule_2022-2023.pdf
21. Gonzalez, E. J. (2012). Rescaling Sampling Weights and Selecting Mini-Samples from Large-Scale Assessment Databases. In D. Hastedt, & M. von Davier (Eds.), IERI Monograph Series: Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments: Volume 5 (pp. 117–134). IEA & ETS.
22. Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How Principals Affect Students and Schools: A Systematic Synthesis of Two Decades of Research. Research Report. Wallace Foundation. https://wallacefoundation.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/How-Principals-Affect-Students-and-Schools.pdf
23. Håkansson Lindqvist, M., & Pettersson, F. (2019). Digitalization and school leadership: on the complexity of leading for digitalization in school. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 36(3), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-11-2018-0126
24. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2019). Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes. Pearson.
25. Hope, W. C., & Stakenas, R. G. (1999). Leading the technology revolution: A new challenge to principals. In F. Kochan (Ed.), Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration 1999 Yearbook: Leadership for the 21st Century (pp. 25–31). Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.
26. Ismail, S. N., Omar, M. N., & Raman, A. (2021). The authority of principals’ technology leadership in empowering teachers’ self-efficacy towards ICT use. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(3), 878–885. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v10i3.21816
27. Karakose, T., Polat, H., & Papadakis, S. (2021). Examining Teachers’ Perspectives on School Principals’ Digital Leadership Roles and Technology Capabilities during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 13(23), 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313448
28. Kupaysinovna, K. S., & Abduvokhid, I. A. (2021). Advanced Experiences In The Use Of Digital Technologies In Teaching Fine Arts. On The Example Of Finland And South Korea. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(7), 939–946.
29. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent Structure Analysis. Houghton Mifflin.
30. Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. S. (2012). Linking Leadership to Student Learning. Jossey-Bass.
31. Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of Unpublished Research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11436268
32. Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Pollock, K. (Eds.). (2017). How School Leaders Contribute to Student Success. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50980-8
33. Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Schumacker, R. (2020). How School Leadership Influences Student Learning: A Test of “The Four Paths Model”. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(4), 570–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19878772
34. Mazza, J. (2015). The use of social media tools by school principals to communicate between home and school. A Dissertation in Educational and Organizational Leadership. University of Pennsylvania. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
35. McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent Class Analysis. SAGE.
36. Mikheeva, E., & Meyer, S. (2020). Analyzing ICILS 2018 data using the IEA IDB Analyzer. In E. Mikheeva, & S. Meyer (Eds.), IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018. User Guide for the International Database (pp. 39–75). IEA Secretariat.
37. Mirazchiyski, P. (2015). Analyzing ICILS 2013 data using the IEA IDB Analyzer. In M. Jung, & R. Carstens (Eds.), ICILS 2013 User Guide for the International Database (pp. 49–86). IEA.
38. Mulford, B. (2003). School Leaders: Challenging Roles and Impact on Teacher and School Effectiveness. OECD Commissioned Paper. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/37133393.pdf
39. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus software (Version 7). Muthén & Muthén.
40. Mwambo, L. J. (2019). The Impact of Principals Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTS) in Effective Administration in Public Secondary Schools in Fako Division. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development 3(2), 687–701. https://doi.org/10.31142/ijtsrd21468
41. Nababan, T. M., Purba, Z. S., Batu, J. S. L., & Sianipar, G. (2021). School Leadership Strategies in the Digital Era. In B. Sinaga, R. Husein, & J. Rajagukguk (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Seminar on Transformative Education and Educational Leadership (AISTEEL 2021) (pp. 103–106). Atlantis Press https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211110.068
42. Nadrljanski, Đ., Nadrljanski, M., & Pavlinović, M. (2022). Digitalization of Education. In M. Ivanović, A. Klašnja-Milićević, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Handbook on Intelligent Techniques in the Educational Process: Vol 1 Recent Advances and Case Studies (pp. 17–39). Springer.
43. Navaridas-Nalda, F., Emeterio, M. C.-S., Fernández-Ortiz, R., & Arias-Oliva, M. (2020). The strategic influence of school principal leadership in the digital transformation of schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 112. 106481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106481
44. Petersen, A.-L. (2014). Teachers’ Perceptions of Principals’ ICT Leadership. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(4), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6132
45. Petko, D., & Prasse, D. (2018). Exploring the Impact of Stakeholder Engagement on the Integration of Educational Technology in Elementary Schools: Expanding the Will-Skill-Tool Model with Contextual Variables. In E. Langran, & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1068-1074). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/182657
46. Pietsch, M., Tulowitzki, P., & Cramer, C. (2022). Innovating teaching and instruction in turbulent times: The dynamics of principals’ exploration and exploitation activities. Journal of Educational Change, 24, 549–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09458-2
47. Pollock, K., & Hauseman, D. C. (2018). The Use of E-mail and Principals’ Work: A Double-Edged Sword. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18, 382–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1398338
48. Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership, Volume 1: Policy and Practice. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264044715-en
49. Ramos-Pla, A., Tintoré, M., & Arco, I. del (2021). Leadership in times of crisis. School principals facing COVID-19. Heliyon, 7(11), e08443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08443
50. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: An Analysis of the Differential Effects of Leadership Types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509
51. Rohatgi, A., Bundsgaard, J., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2020). Digital Inclusion in Norwegian and Danish Schools—Analysing Variation in Teachers’ Collaboration, Attitudes, ICT Use and Students’ ICT Literacy. In T. S. Frønes, A. Pettersen, J. Radišić, N. Buchholtz, & Frønes (Eds.), Equity, Equality and Diversity in the Nordic Model of Education (pp. 139–172). Springer International Publishing.
52. Rost, J. (2004). Lehrbuch Testtheorie – Testkonstruktion [Textbook Test Theory – Test Construction]. Hans Huber Verlag.
53. Rojas Briñez, D. K., Duart, J. M., & Galvis Panqueva, Á. H. (2023). Findings and derived challenges concerning how school leaders should support ICT integration at schools. School Leadership & Management, 43(5), 497–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2023.2237514
54. Ruloff, M., & Petko, D. (2021). School principals’ educational goals and leadership styles for digital transformation: Results from case studies in upper secondary schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.2014979
55. Schmitz, M.-L., Antonietti, C., Consoli, T., Cattaneo, A., Gonon, P., & Petko, D. (2023). Transformational leadership for technology integration in schools: Empowering teachers to use technology in a more demanding way. Computers & Education 204, 104880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104880
56. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the Dimension of a Model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136
57. Storte, D., Webb, M.E., Bottino, R., Passey, D., Kalas, I., Bescherer, C., Smith, J., Angeli, C., Katz, Y.J., Micheuz, P., Røsvik, S., Brinda, T., Fluck, A.E., Magenheim, J., Anderson, B., & Fuschek, G. (2019). Coding, Programming and the Changing Curriculum for Computing in Schools. University of Tasmania. Report. https://hdl.handle.net/102.100.100/495503
58. Stuart, L. H., Mills, A. M., & Remus, U. (2009). School leaders, ICT competence and championing innovations. Computers & Education, 53(3), 733–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.013
59. Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2012). Transformational School Leadership Effects on Student Achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(4), 418–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2012.681001
60. Tan, C. Y. (2018). Examining school leadership effects on student achievement: the role of contextual challenges and constraints. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(1), 21–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1221885
61. Tan, C. Y., Gao, L., & Shi, M. (2022). Second-order meta-analysis synthesizing the evidence on associations between school leadership and different school outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(3), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220935456
62. Ten Bruggencate, G., Luyten, H., Scheerens, J., & Sleegers, P. (2012). Modeling the Influence of School Leaders on Student Achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 699–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11436272
63. Tiede, J., Grafe, S., & Hobbs, R. (2015). Pedagogical Media Competencies of Preservice Teachers in Germany and the United States: A Comparative Analysis of Theory and Practice. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(4), 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1068083
64. Tulowitzki, P., Gerick, J., & Eickelmann, B. (2022). The role of ICT for school leadership and management activities: an international comparison. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-06-2021-0251
65. Ünlü, A., & Schurig, M. (2016). Computational typologies of multidimensional end-of-primary-school performance profiles from an educational perspective of large-scale TIMSS and PIRLS surveys. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 18(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.52214/cice.v18i1.11525
66. Vachkova, S., Petryaeva, E. Y., Milyaeva, D. A., Ageeva, N. S., & Mikhailova, S. V. (2021). Analytical Review of Education Policies on Digital Transformation of School Education Worldwide. In S. Vachkova, & S. S.-C. Chiang (Eds.), Education and City: Qualitiy Education for Modern Cities (pp. 248–270). European Publisher.
67. Vermeulen, M., Van Acker, F., Kreijns, K., & Buuren, H. van (2015). Does transformational leadership encourage teachers’ use of digital learning materials. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(6), 1006–1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214535749
68. Wendt, H., & Kasper, D. (2016). Subject-specific strength and weaknesses of fourth-grade students in Europe: a comparative latent profile analysis of multidimensional proficiency patterns based on PIRLS/TIMSS combined 2011. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-016-0026-2
69. Witthöft, J., Aydin, B., & Pietsch, M. (2024). Leading digital innovation in schools: the role of the open innovation mindset. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2024.2398528