Educational Leaders’ Preparation for Digital and Change Management in Basic Education: A Qualitative Document Analysis of Policy Expectations and Preparation Pathway
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aim: The rapid digital transformation of education has expanded expectations for educational leaders in basic education, particularly in leading organizational change, digital innovation, and governance reform. International policy and institutional documents increasingly position school leaders as central agents of transformation; however, the extent to which these documents articulate coherent preparation pathways remains insufficiently examined. This study aimed to analyze how educational leaders’ preparation for digital leadership and change management is conceptualized and articulated in publicly available policy and institutional documents, with particular attention to alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 4, 9, 10, and 16.
Materials and Methods: This study employed a qualitative document analysis design guided by Bowen’s framework. Ten purposively selected international policy reports, leadership standards, digital competence frameworks, and institutional guidance documents published between 2015 and 2024 constituted the analytic corpus. Documents were retrieved from reputable organizations, including UNESCO and related policy bodies. Data were analyzed through iterative qualitative content analysis using combined deductive and inductive coding to identify recurring themes, competency expectations, SDG alignment, and discursive gaps in leadership preparation.
Results: The findings revealed that leadership preparation is predominantly framed through normative expectations and competency-based discourse rather than explicit developmental pathways. Documents consistently emphasized competencies related to digital vision-setting, instructional leadership, organizational improvement, and change management. However, structured preparation mechanisms such as induction, mentoring, practicum experiences, assessment systems, and credentialing processes were rarely specified. Alignment with SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) was more evident than alignment with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Furthermore, governance-related competencies—including data stewardship, AI ethics, digital accountability, and equity-oriented leadership—were frequently referenced rhetorically but insufficiently operationalized within preparation frameworks.
Conclusion: The study identified a persistent disconnect between leadership expectations and the preparation infrastructures articulated in international policy discourse. Although educational leaders are positioned as key drivers of digital transformation, preparation pathways remain underdeveloped and inconsistently specified. The findings highlight the need for explicit, coherent, and SDG-aligned leadership preparation frameworks that integrate digital governance, ethical leadership, equity, and change management into structured and assessable professional development systems for basic education leaders.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright and License
Copyright of all articles published in the Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR) is retained by the author(s).
All articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Users may read, download, copy, distribute, and share the content for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution.
Modification, adaptation, or commercial use of the content is not permitted.
License details: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
References
Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2020). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), Article 101377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101377 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101377
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bush, T. (2020). School leadership and management in England: The paradox of simultaneous centralization and decentralization. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(4), 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219896054
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2022). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 26(1), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a culture of change (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Hallinger, P. (2020). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218822772 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216670652
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Education responses to COVID-19: Embracing digital learning and online collaboration. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). School leadership for learning: Insights from TALIS 2018. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/4f9556a1-en
Selwyn, N. (2022). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350145573
Tikly, L., Joubert, M., Barrett, A. M., Bainton, D., Cameron, L., & Doyle, H. (2020). Supporting global sustainable development: The role of education. Comparative Education, 56(2), 166–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1745114
UNESCO. (2016). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action. https://unesdoc.unesco.org
UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? https://www.unesco.org/gem-report
UNESCO. (2024). Education leadership: Transforming education systems through leadership. https://unesdoc.unesco.org
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995
Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641
