Volume 3, Issue 3 (September 2024)
IJER 2024, 3(3): 131-164 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Azarshab E, Ghahramani M, Abolghasemi M, Azimi E. (2024). Digital Learning Leadership Practices in Technology Integration: A Systematic Review and Framework Synthesis. IJER. 3(3), 131-164. doi:10.22034/3.3.131
URL: http://ijer.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-65-en.html
URL: http://ijer.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-65-en.html
1- Department of Education, Faculty of Educational Science & Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Education, Faculty of Educational Science & Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran ,m-ghahramani@sbu.ac.ir
3- Department of Educational Technology, Faculty of Human Sciences, Tarbiat modarres University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Education, Faculty of Educational Science & Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran ,
3- Department of Educational Technology, Faculty of Human Sciences, Tarbiat modarres University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (923 Views)
Objective This research aims to identify school principals' practices in integrating technology.
Methods: The methodological approach employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Qualitative or mixed studies that examined school principals' practices in integrating technology into school teaching and learning conducted between 1999 and February 2023, were eligible. Data was searched through Science Direct, Springer, ProQuest, Emerald, Web of Science, Eric, and Google Scholar search engines. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize the findings.
Results: Out of 6441 results from primary and supplementary searches, 19 eligible studies were chosen within five framework domains: Establishing and conveying the vision (creating a shared vision of technology integration, sharing vision continuously, and modeling technology use); Facilitating a high-quality learning experience for students (making data-based decisions, promoting technological pedagogy, and digital citizenship education); Building professional capacity (creating professional development opportunities, encouraging a professional learning community, embracing job-embedded learning, and encouraging differentiated learning); Creating a supportive organization for learning (providing appropriate resources, promoting a collaborative culture, leading change, supporting risk-taking, and fostering a positive attitude towards technology); And connecting with external partners (cultivating communication networks within society, and involving parents in education).
Conclusions: The results revealed notable distinctions in school principals' practices between blended learning and traditional education. Some practices of principals, such as curriculum planning, have become less prevalent. Nonetheless, there is a heightened emphasis on practices like engaging parents in education. Additionally, school principals facilitate students' learning by directly engaging in their tasks.Objective This research aims to identify school principals' practices in integrating technology.
Methods: The methodological approach employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Qualitative or mixed studies that examined school principals' practices in integrating technology into school teaching and learning conducted between 1999 and February 2023, were eligible. Data was searched through Science Direct, Springer, ProQuest, Emerald, Web of Science, Eric, and Google Scholar search engines. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize the findings.
Results: Out of 6441 results from primary and supplementary searches, 19 eligible studies were chosen within five framework domains: Establishing and conveying the vision (creating a shared vision of technology integration, sharing vision continuously, and modeling technology use); Facilitating a high-quality learning experience for students (making data-based decisions, promoting technological pedagogy, and digital citizenship education); Building professional capacity (creating professional development opportunities, encouraging a professional learning community, embracing job-embedded learning, and encouraging differentiated learning); Creating a supportive organization for learning (providing appropriate resources, promoting a collaborative culture, leading change, supporting risk-taking, and fostering a positive attitude towards technology); And connecting with external partners (cultivating communication networks within society, and involving parents in education).
Conclusions: The results revealed notable distinctions in school principals' practices between blended learning and traditional education. Some practices of principals, such as curriculum planning, have become less prevalent. Nonetheless, there is a heightened emphasis on practices like engaging parents in education. Additionally, school principals facilitate students' learning by directly engaging in their tasks.
Methods: The methodological approach employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Qualitative or mixed studies that examined school principals' practices in integrating technology into school teaching and learning conducted between 1999 and February 2023, were eligible. Data was searched through Science Direct, Springer, ProQuest, Emerald, Web of Science, Eric, and Google Scholar search engines. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize the findings.
Results: Out of 6441 results from primary and supplementary searches, 19 eligible studies were chosen within five framework domains: Establishing and conveying the vision (creating a shared vision of technology integration, sharing vision continuously, and modeling technology use); Facilitating a high-quality learning experience for students (making data-based decisions, promoting technological pedagogy, and digital citizenship education); Building professional capacity (creating professional development opportunities, encouraging a professional learning community, embracing job-embedded learning, and encouraging differentiated learning); Creating a supportive organization for learning (providing appropriate resources, promoting a collaborative culture, leading change, supporting risk-taking, and fostering a positive attitude towards technology); And connecting with external partners (cultivating communication networks within society, and involving parents in education).
Conclusions: The results revealed notable distinctions in school principals' practices between blended learning and traditional education. Some practices of principals, such as curriculum planning, have become less prevalent. Nonetheless, there is a heightened emphasis on practices like engaging parents in education. Additionally, school principals facilitate students' learning by directly engaging in their tasks.Objective This research aims to identify school principals' practices in integrating technology.
Methods: The methodological approach employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Qualitative or mixed studies that examined school principals' practices in integrating technology into school teaching and learning conducted between 1999 and February 2023, were eligible. Data was searched through Science Direct, Springer, ProQuest, Emerald, Web of Science, Eric, and Google Scholar search engines. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize the findings.
Results: Out of 6441 results from primary and supplementary searches, 19 eligible studies were chosen within five framework domains: Establishing and conveying the vision (creating a shared vision of technology integration, sharing vision continuously, and modeling technology use); Facilitating a high-quality learning experience for students (making data-based decisions, promoting technological pedagogy, and digital citizenship education); Building professional capacity (creating professional development opportunities, encouraging a professional learning community, embracing job-embedded learning, and encouraging differentiated learning); Creating a supportive organization for learning (providing appropriate resources, promoting a collaborative culture, leading change, supporting risk-taking, and fostering a positive attitude towards technology); And connecting with external partners (cultivating communication networks within society, and involving parents in education).
Conclusions: The results revealed notable distinctions in school principals' practices between blended learning and traditional education. Some practices of principals, such as curriculum planning, have become less prevalent. Nonetheless, there is a heightened emphasis on practices like engaging parents in education. Additionally, school principals facilitate students' learning by directly engaging in their tasks.
Type of Study: Review |
Subject:
Educational Studies
Received: 2023/11/9 | Accepted: 2024/07/30 | Published: 2024/09/1
Received: 2023/11/9 | Accepted: 2024/07/30 | Published: 2024/09/1
References
1. Aksal, F. A. (2015). Are headmasters digital leaders in school culture? Egitim ve Bilim, 40(182). [DOI:10.15390/EB.2015.4534]
2. Alexander, B. W. (2021). Leadership in High Achieving Blended Learning Schools. University of Northern Colorado.
3. Aromataris, E., & Pearson, A. (2014). The systematic review: an overview. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 114(3), 53-58. [DOI:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000444496.24228.2c]
4. Awodiji, O. A., & Naicker, S. R. (2023). Preparing school leaders for the fourth industrial revolution: An assessment of their continuous professional development needs. Social sciences & humanities open, 8(1), 100521. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100521]
5. Baldanza, M. (2018). Baldanza's model of 21st century instructional leadership. Professional Practices, 1-5.
6. Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. BCcampus.
7. Bianco, A., De Marsico, M., & Temperini, M. (2005). Standards for e-learning. Norway: Quality, Interoperability and Standards in e-Learning.
8. Bird, J. J., Dunaway, D. M., Hancock, D. R., & Wang, C. (2013). The superintendent's leadership role in school improvement: Relationships between authenticity and best practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(1), 77-99. [DOI:10.1080/15700763.2013.766348]
9. Blackboard. (2018). The new learning leader: The emerging role of the agile school principal as digital evangelist and instructional leader. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED600564.pdf
10. Brown, B., & Jacobsen, M. (2016). Principals' technology leadership: How a conceptual framework shaped a mixed methods study. Journal of School Leadership, 26(5), 811-836. [DOI:10.1177/105268461602600504]
11. Butler, A., Hall, H., & Copnell, B. (2016). A guide to writing a qualitative systematic review protocol to enhance evidence‐based practice in nursing and health care. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 13(3), 241-249. [DOI:10.1111/wvn.12134]
12. Chang, I.-H., Chin, J. M., & Hsu, C.-M. (2008). Teachers' perceptions of the dimensions and implementation of technology leadership of principals in Taiwanese elementary schools. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 229-245.
13. Cox, M., Abbott, C., Webb, M., Blakely, B., Beauchamp, T., & Rhodes, V. (2003). ICT and attainment: A review of the research literature.
14. Crompton, H. (2018). Education reimagined: Leading systemwide change with the ISTE standards. International Society for Technology in Education.
15. Cross, J. (2004). An informal History of E learning, On the Horizon. 2004. 12 (3). pp. 103, 110. [DOI:10.1108/10748120410555340]
16. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Reforming schools through technology, 1980-2000. [DOI:10.4159/9780674030107]
17. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)
18. Dasruth, J. (2020). Teachers' perceptions of their principals' digital leadership practices in Gauteng West. University of Johannesburg (South Africa).
19. Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2016). Teacher capacity for and beliefs about data-driven decision making: A literature review of international research. Journal of Educational Change, 17, 7-28. [DOI:10.1007/s10833-015-9264-2]
20. Dexter, S. (2011). School technology leadership: Artifacts in systems of practice. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 166-189. [DOI:10.1177/105268461102100202]
21. Dexter, S., & Barton, E. A. (2021). The development and impact of team-based school technology leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(3), 367-384. [DOI:10.1108/JEA-12-2020-0260]
22. 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. [DOI:10.1080/15391523.2019.1668316]
23. Driscoll, M. (2019). Top 10 Characteristics of Awesome 21st Century School Leaders. In.
24. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001]
25. Fawns, T. (2019). Postdigital education in design and practice. Postdigital science and education, 1(1), 132-145. [DOI:10.1007/s42438-018-0021-8]
26. Fraser, R. (2020). Teachers' Perceptions of Technology Leadership that Impact Technology Use in the Classroom. Wilkes University.
27. Garza Jr, E., Drysdale, L., Gurr, D., Jacobson, S., & Merchant, B. (2014). Leadership for school success: Lessons from effective principals. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(7), 798-811. [DOI:10.1108/IJEM-08-2013-0125]
28. Gerard, L. F., Bowyer, J. B., & Linn, M. C. (2010). How does a community of principals develop leadership for technology-enhanced science? Journal of School Leadership, 20(2), 145-183. [DOI:10.1177/105268461002000203]
29. Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. An introduction to systematic reviews, 1-352.
30. Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers' successful implementation of IT. Journal of computer assisted learning, 18(4), 480-488. [DOI:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.00259.doc.x]
31. Greaves, T. W., Hayes, J., Wilson, L., Gielniak, M., & Peterson, E. L. (2012). Revolutionizing education through technology: The project RED roadmap for transformation. International Society for Technology in Education.
32. Gupton, S. L. (2009). The instructional leadership toolbox: A handbook for improving practice. Corwin Press. [DOI:10.4135/9781452219226]
33. Gupton, S. L. (2010). The instructional leadership toolbox: A handbook for improving practice. In: Corwin Press. [DOI:10.4135/9781452219226]
34. Håkansson Lindqvist, M. (2019). School leaders' practices for innovative use of digital technologies in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1226-1240. [DOI:10.1111/bjet.12782]
35. 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. [DOI:10.1108/IJILT-11-2018-0126]
36. Helterbran, V. R. (2010). Teacher leadership: Overcoming'I am just a teacher'syndrome. Education, 131(2), 363-372.
37. Herczeg, M. (2021). Education in the Digital Age: A Driving Force or a Lost Place: Post-Constructivist Digital Learning Through Ambient Learning Spaces. i-com, 20(3), 263-277. [DOI:10.1515/icom-2021-0031]
38. Hickman, L., & Akdere, M. (2018). Effective leadership development in information technology: Building transformational and emergent leaders. Industrial and Commercial Training, 50(1), 1-9. [DOI:10.1108/ICT-06-2017-0039]
39. Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of educational research, 86(2), 531-569. [DOI:10.3102/0034654315614911]
40. Ho, L.-H., Hung, C.-L., & Chen, H.-C. (2013). Using theoretical models to examine the acceptance behavior of mobile phone messaging to enhance parent-teacher interactions. Computers & Education, 61, 105-114. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.009]
41. Huber, S. G. (2004). Preparing school leaders for the 21st century. CRC Press. [DOI:10.1201/b16981]
42. Hupe, M. (2019). EndNote X9. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 16(3-4), 117-119. [DOI:10.1080/15424065.2019.1691963]
43. ISTE. (2018). ISTE standards for administrators. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educationleaders
44. Kemp, A. (2015). Expectations and reality: Primary school principals' experiences of change leadership in the transition to digital learning environments
45. Kipp, C. A. (2019). A qualitative case study identifying leadership roles that significantly impact the integration of technology in secondary schools. Kansas State University.
46. Lachal, J., Revah-Levy, A., Orri, M., & Moro, M. R. (2017). Metasynthesis: an original method to synthesize qualitative literature in psychiatry. Frontiers in psychiatry, 8, 269. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00269]
47. Landa, D. (2021). Having a Vision Is Not Enough, You Need a Shared Common Vision. https://www.reworked.co/leadership/having-a-vision-is-not-enough-you-need-a-shared-common-vision/(Reworked )
48. LaRocque, M., Kleiman, I., & Darling, S. M. (2011). Parental involvement: The missing link in school achievement. Preventing school failure, 55(3), 115-122. [DOI:10.1080/10459880903472876]
49. Leathwood, C., & Read, B. (2012). Assessing the impact of developments in research policy for research on higher education: An exploratory study. Society for Research into Higher Education, 1-24.
50. Leithwood, K. (2012). The Ontario leadership framework 2012. Retrieved from the Institute for Education Leadership website: http://iel. immix. ca/storage/6/1345688978/Final_Research_Report_-_EN. pdf.
51. Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement. Review of educational research, 52(3), 309-339. [DOI:10.3102/00346543052003309]
52. Leshkevich, T., & Kirik, V. (2018). The semantic shift in educational technologies in the digital age. 3rd International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences and Humanities (ICCESSH 2018), [DOI:10.2991/iccessh-18.2018.21]
53. Liu, P. (2020). Understanding turnaround leadership research: Continuity and change (2009-2016). Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(1), 6-24. [DOI:10.1177/1741143218807490]
54. Matzat, U. (2010). Reducing problems of sociability in online communities: Integrating online communication with offline interaction. American behavioral scientist, 53(8), 1170-1193. [DOI:10.1177/0002764209356249]
55. Matzat, U. (2013). Do blended virtual learning communities enhance teachers' professional development more than purely virtual ones? A large scale empirical comparison. Computers & Education, 60(1), 40-51. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.006]
56. Means, B., Padilla, C., DeBarger, A., & Bakia, M. (2009). Implementing data-informed decision making in schools: Teacher access, supports and use. US Department of Education.
57. Mills, A. D. (2016). Strategic school solutions: A capacity building framework for leaders accelerating 21st century teaching and learning. Pepperdine University.
58. Milman, N. B. (2020). School leadership of a one-to-one laptop initiative. Journal of School Leadership, 30(4), 356-374. [DOI:10.1177/1052684619852114]
59. Mishra, P., Henriksen, D., Boltz, L. O., & Richardson, C. (2016). E-leadership and teacher development using ICT. ICT in education in global context: Comparative reports of innovations in K-12 education, 249-266. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-662-47956-8_13]
60. Moore, K. A. (2018). Teachers' perceptions of principal digital leadership behaviors that impact technology use in the classroom. Dallas Baptist University.
61. Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual foundation. Learning Sciences Institute, Vanderbilt University (NJ1).
62. Naicker, S. E., & Khumalo, S. S. (2023). Secondary school leadership and technology integration in pedagogical practices: Challenges, impediments, and successes.
63. Navaridas-Nalda, F., Clavel-San Emeterio, M., 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. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106481]
64. Nelson, D. F. (2021). Principals' Perspectives regarding Their Leadership Roles in Smart Board Technology Integration Walden University].
65. Ng, P. T. (2016). What is a 'good'principal? Perspectives of aspiring principals in Singapore. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 15, 99-113. [DOI:10.1007/s10671-015-9183-2]
66. O'Brien, T., & Stavert, B. (2011). Creating good digital citizens. Education in a technological world: Communicating current and emerging research and technological efforts, 115-119.
67. OECD. (2019). Education at a Glance 2019. Accessed March, 10, 2020. doi: 10.1787/f8d7880d-en [DOI:10.1787/f8d7880d-en]
68. Olmstead, C. (2013). Using technology to increase parent involvement in schools. TechTrends, 57(6), 28-37. [DOI:10.1007/s11528-013-0699-0]
69. Oswandel, A. (2020). A Qualitative Descriptive Study of Virtual Leadership in K-12 Education Grand Canyon University].
70. Ouellette, J. (2021). Exploring parental experiences of continuing pregnancy in the presence of a life-limiting fetal condition: A qualitative meta-synthesis Université d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa].
71. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., . . . Brennan, S. E. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International journal of surgery, 88, 105906. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906]
72. Papa, R. (2011). Technology leadership for school improvement. Sage. [DOI:10.4135/9781452243894]
73. Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 12(6), 729-733. [DOI:10.1089/cpb.2009.0003]
74. Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329-348. [DOI:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782463]
75. Powell, A. M. (2022). Describing the Technology Leadership Competencies Present in Elementary and Middle School Leaders Grand Canyon University].
76. Quilici, S. B., & Joki, R. (2012). Investigating roles of online school principals. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(2), 141-160. [DOI:10.1080/15391523.2011.10782583]
77. Richardson, J. W., Beck, D., LaFrance, J., & McLeod, S. (2016). Job attainment and perceived role differences of cyberschool leaders. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 211-222.
78. Richardson, J. W., Flora, K., & Bathon, J. (2013). Fostering a School Technology Vision in School Leader. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(1), 144-160.
79. Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. (2012). Analysing teacher knowledge for technology education in primary schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 271-280. [DOI:10.1007/s10798-010-9147-z]
80. Russell, G. (2018). Strategic leadership in technology implementation: A case study on the principal's role in classroom technology Northwest Nazarene University].
81. Sauers, N. J., Richardson, J. W., & McLeod, S. (2014). Technology-savvy school superintendents: Successes and challenges. Journal of School Leadership, 24(6), 1177-1201.
82. Schachter, R. (2010). A call for technology leadership. District Administration, 46(10), 41-45.
83. Schoenbart, A. J. (2019). Principals' Perceptions of Their Technology Leadership & Behaviors: A Mixed Methods Study Manhattanville College].
84. Sebring, P., Allensworth, E., Bryk, A., Easton, J., & Luppescu, S. (2006). The essential supports for school improvement. Retrieved March 9, 2007. In.
85. Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2006). The Essential Supports for School Improvement. Research Report. Consortium on Chicago School Research.
86. Seneca, T. S. (2008). The principal as technology leader: the skills e-learners consider essential to the creation of a technology-rich school community. Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College.
87. Shemshack, A. (2021). What supports do teachers need on effective instructional technology integration. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 22(1), 22-51.
88. Sheninger. (2014). Pillars of digital leadership. International Center for Leadership in Education, 1(4), 1-4.
89. Sheninger, E., & Murray, T. C. (2017). Rebooting Industrial Era Seating. George Lucas Educational Foundation. Edutopia.
90. Sheninger, E. C., & Murray, T. C. (2017). Learning transformed: 8 keys to designing tomorrow's schools, today. In: ASCD.
91. Sterrett, W., & Richardson, J. W. (2020). Supporting professional development through digital principal leadership. Journal of Organizational & Educational Leadership, 5(2), 4.
92. Stoll, L. (2009). Connecting learning communities: Capacity building for systemic change. Second international handbook of educational change, 469-484. [DOI:10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_28]
93. Tołwińska, B. (2021). The role of principals in learning schools to support teachers' use of digital technologies. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26(4), 917-930. [DOI:10.1007/s10758-021-09496-4]
94. Tucker, T. N. (2014). Virtual K-12 leadership: A postmodern paradigm. Florida Atlantic University.
95. Van Wart, M., Roman, A., Wang, X., & Liu, C. (2019). Operationalizing the definition of e-leadership: identifying the elements of e-leadership. International review of administrative sciences, 85(1), 80-97. [DOI:10.1177/0020852316681446]
96. Withers, K. W. (2019). A Profile of Principals in Digital Learning Environments The University of North Carolina at Greensboro].
97. Wolff, A. C., Dresselhuis, A., Hejazi, S., Dixon, D., Gibson, D., Howard, A. F., . . . Noonan, V. K. (2021). Healthcare provider characteristics that influence the implementation of individual-level patient-centered outcome measure (PROM) and patient-reported experience measure (PREM) data across practice settings: a protocol for a mixed methods systematic review with a narrative synthesis. Systematic reviews, 10(1), 169. [DOI:10.1186/s13643-021-01725-2]
98. Woodward, L. (2018). A Case Study Exploring Effective Leadership in Technology Integration in Three Southeastern US Elementary Schools.
99. Wylie, C., & Bonne, L. (2014). Primary and intermediate schools in 2013. Main findings from the NZCER national survey.
100. Young, M. D., Crow, G. M., Murphy, J., & Ogawa, R. T. (2009). Handbook of research on the education of school leaders. Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203878866]
101. Zhong, L. (2017a). The effectiveness of K-12 principal's digital leadership in supporting and promoting communication and collaboration regarding CCSS implementation. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 10(2), 4. [DOI:10.18785/jetde.1002.04]
102. Zhong, L. (2017b). Indicators of digital leadership in the context of K-12 education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 10(1), 3. [DOI:10.18785/jetde.1001.03]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International. |
