Expanding Frontiers: A Systematic Literature Review on the Definition, Factors, Best Practices, and Recommendations on K-12 Administrators’ Technology Leadership

Technology is changing the world. Society is becoming increasingly dependent on the affordances of technology for everything from buying groceries to being active, productive employees. The inclusion of technology in all aspects of daily living has required educational institutions to integrate technology into teaching and learning effectively to promote student learning in the new digital world (Ellis et al., 2021; Karakose et al., 2021). Unfortunately, many schools face challenges in effectively integrating technology into every aspect (Apsorn et al., 2019). Some of the reasons include lack of resources, resistance to change, inequity, bureaucracy, low self-efficacy, negative beliefs about technology’s usefulness, motivation deficiency, limited access, deficient pedagogical knowledge, and scarcity of support systems (AlAjmi, 2022; Ellis et al., 2021). Because of these factors, the technology integration issue transcends classroom walls and, in nature, needs systemwide changes. Thus, administrators must make the necessary changes to leverage technology integration effectively.

K-12 administrators are critical stakeholders for student learning and technology integration in schools and districts (Dexter & Richardson, 2020). Research has found that administrators’ leadership predicts teachers’ technology integration (AlAjmi, 2022; A’mar & Eleyan, 2022; Kaya-Kasikci et al., 2023). At the same time, leadership can affect teachers’ attitudes toward innovation, change, and technology integration in schools (Liu et al., 2013).

Ideal administrators for technology integration in schools should be innovative, productive, and confident in setting goals for technology use and implementation (Bektaș, 2014). These innovative and confident administrators should model the behaviors for their staff and students, represent their schools and districts, and pay attention to their online and offline images (Ellis et al., 2021). Accordingly, administrators must understand their role as not just curriculum leaders but also technology leaders. They should be both an expert in technology leadership and a transformational leader to promote systemic change for school-wide technology integration (Apsorn et al., 2019). Such administrators have a mindset of strategically leveraging the school culture, focusing on integrating technology to facilitate student achievement and engage teachers and students in innovative use of technology tools (Aksal, 2015; Sheninger & Murray, 2017).

K-12 administrators’ roles now encompass instructional leadership, change management, supervision, and technology leadership (Ellis et al., 2021; Öner et al., 2024). While they may feel prepared to take on many of these roles, the role of technology leader is one aspect they feel most unprepared for (see also AlAjmi, 2022). Administrators’ computer competence and level of computer use greatly influence their transformational leadership in technology integration (Afshari, Bakar et al., 2012). To be effective in their technology leadership, administrators must understand modern technologies, model their use, have ongoing professional learning, be familiar with current research and best practices, and encourage adoption (see also Apsorn et al., 2019; Karakose et al., 2021).

Beyond technology, administrators must lead systemic change strategically (Liu et al., 2013), starting with strong leadership at the top (Pautz & Sadera, 2017). Marzano et al. (2005) found seven leadership responsibilities related to systemic change: change agent, flexibility, ideals and beliefs, intellectual stimulation, knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, monitoring and evaluating, and optimizer.

As change facilitators, administrators must support technology integration through the provision of professional development (PD), developing realistic goals, supporting integration efforts, and creating a culture for change (Bingham, 2021; Dexter & Richardson, 2020; Ellis et al., 2021; Karakose et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2013). Sterrett and Richardson (2019) also identified four themes for the change-ready leadership of technology-savvy superintendents: meeting stakeholders’ needs, supporting PD, fostering mindset change, and addressing fear of the unknown.

Leadership is crucial for both student learning and teachers’ effective technology integration (Dexter & Richardson, 2020; Liu et al., 2013). School leaders must develop their own skills, embrace technology’s role in education, and model these behaviors for teachers (Apsorn et al., 2019; Bingham, 2021; Ellis et al., 2021). They must create and implement plans to integrate technology effectively (Ellis et al., 2021). However, the research found that K-12 administrators are not fully prepared for technology leadership and need ongoing professional learning (Esplin et al., 2018; Ugur & Koç, 2019).

There is a solid need to research K-12 administrators’ technology leadership so that an agreed-upon definition and a list of best practices can be adopted and implemented in preservice programs and daily practices. However, most research on technology integration in K-12 schools and districts focuses on teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra, 2019). Compared to this pool of literature, there are fewer studies on administrators’ technology leadership, best practices, and impact on teachers’ technology integration practices and students’ learning outcomes (AlAjmi, 2022). Thus, a systematic literature review serves the field by providing a renewed definition of K-12 administrators’ technology leadership, along with their best practices, factors affecting leadership, and recommendations for improvement.

Conceptual Frameworks

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards for Administrators (ISTE, 2014) and the Unified Model of Effective Leader Practices (Dexter & Richardson, 2020) undergird the current review and serve as our conceptual frameworks. The ISTE Standards for Leaders are repeatedly mentioned in the articles focusing on K-12 administrators’ technology leadership. While many organizations have developed technology standards, the ISTE standards were the first to outline competencies associated with effective technology leadership (Crompton, 2023). The domains of the ISTE standards for leadership include equity and citizenship advocate, visionary planner, empowering leader, systems designer, and connected learner (ISTE, 2014). Descriptors of these standards include ensuring that students have access to effective teachers and technologies; understanding of safe, ethical, and legal behaviors; leaders who are committed to their role as technology leaders; leaders who are able to create a digital culture; supporting PD efforts, providing resources, and using data to improve overall learning; role models and effective communicators; providing infrastructure to meet the vision; working with stakeholders; staying up-to-date with emerging technology; and being committed to their vision and its success.

The ISTE standards have been adopted by all 50 states and several countries, with a vast amount of research related to applying the standards, which gives credence to their reliability and validity. However, there is also concern related to the development of the standards. There is no published information related to the development of the standards, nor ongoing updates outside the ISTE organization itself (Cherner et al., 2021). Even with this concern, the vast research base that uses the ISTE standards as its framework does seem to justify its use (e.g., Esplin et al., 2018; Pautz & Sadera, 2017; Ugur & Koç, 2019).

The Unified Model of Effective Leader Practices (Dexter & Richardson, 2020) also lists five domains similar to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, 2014) Standards for Administrators. These domains include establishing vision, facilitating student learning, building professional capacity, supporting the organization, and partnering with external stakeholders (Dexter & Richardson, 2020). The descriptors for these domains include sharing, implementing, and modeling the vision; using data for improvement and accountability; developing and monitoring curricular, instructional, and assessment programs; personalizing learning opportunities for faculty; building trust; creating a culture that recognizes and supports staff; obtaining and allocating resources; distributed leadership; maintaining high expectations and standards; building productive partnerships with stakeholders; engaging families; and anchoring the schools in the communities.

These frameworks were chosen for their prevalence in the literature. They share a common goal of integrating technology for the improvement of educational practices. While they do focus on different ways to accomplish the goal, they are complementary and helped shape the analysis and development of our definition of K-12 administrators’ technology leadership and best practices (see Figure 1).

Figure 1
Connections of the Two Conceptual Frameworks (Dexter & Richardson, 2020; ISTE, 2014)

In vision and leadership, both frameworks emphasize the importance of having visionary leadership that fosters technology integration; they differ in focus. The ISTE standards highlighted a shared vision among all stakeholders, while Dexter and Richardson (2020) focused on setting a bold, long-term vision. While both standards focused on technology integration in teaching and learning, Dexter and Richardson (2020) emphasized improving practice through collaboration and creating systemic organizational change.

Another similarity between the two frameworks is community and stakeholder engagement. The ISTE standards included this concept as part of digital citizenship, while Dexter and Richardson (2020) focused more broadly on collaborative leadership and stakeholder partnerships. Both frameworks also addressed the importance of data use, with the ISTE standards focused on using technology for continuous learning. Dexter and Richardson (2020) emphasized using data-driven decision-making for instructional improvement.

While these points were the general similarities and differences, it should be noted that the primary difference between the two frameworks was the focus. The ISTE standards for Educational Leaders focused on leadership practices that relate to technology integration. At the same time, Dexter and Richardson’s (2020) Unified Model is broader and more holistic, with an emphasis on organizational leadership and collaborative practices necessary for sustained organizational change.

This systematic literature review investigates existing definitions, impacting factors, best practices, and recommendations for K-12 administrators’ technology leadership. The two aforementioned conceptual frameworks undergird the current review and serve as our conceptual frameworks. Both frameworks support us in the conceptualization and coding processes to create an updated definition, various research-based impacting factors, a comprehensive list of best practices, and a set of recommendations for strengthening K-12 administrators’ technology leadership.

Methods

This systematic literature review searched and analyzed articles focused on K-12 administrators’ technology leadership. The time frame is from 2010 to 2024, covering 15 years of research, starting with when technology integration became a predominant component in the educational field and showcased the impacts of technology leadership on its implementation.

We followed the five steps of conducting a systematic literature review: (a) framing the questions, (b) identifying relevant work, (c) assessing the quality of studies, (d) summarizing the evidence, and (e) interpreting the findings (Khan et al., 2003). Meanwhile, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021) were utilized.

Data Collection

We first formulated the research questions (RQ) and identified the search keywords. Four research questions guided this study:

1. What is the definition of technology leadership for K-12 administrators?
2. What are the factors that impact K-12 administrators’ technology leadership?
3. What are technology leadership best practices for K-12 administrators?
4. What are the recommendations for cultivating K-12 administrators’ technology leadership?

Relevant terms included technology leadership, leadership, administrators, principals, K-12, school, school district, technology integration, leadership characteristics, school principal roles, and superintendents. Once we finished framing the questions and identified vital terms, we searched for relevant works in five databases: Web of Science (WoS), Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Table 1 displays the search terms and results from these five databases. Altogether, 213 articles were identified with four duplicates, resulting in 209 articles for initial assessment.

Table 1
Search Terms Used in the Five Databases

We screened 209 articles using the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2). First, we excluded five duplicates. Then, we excluded 159 articles because they did not meet the inclusion criteria: publication type (33), time span (7), participants (30), target setting (9), focus (75), and access (5). We then read the full text of the remaining 45 articles to ensure their contents were relevant to our research questions. We excluded nine more articles because of their focus. As a result, 36 articles met all the inclusion criteria and were included for further assessment (Appendix A). Figure 2 illustrates the flowchart of the data collection processes.

Table 2
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Figure 2
Literature Screening and Appraisal Flowchart Following PRISMA Guidelines (Page et al., 2021)

Data Analysis

Literature on the topic of K-12 administrators’ technology leadership is abundant. So, we used an a priori coding method to code our 36 included articles (as recommended by Saldaňa, 2012). The two conceptual frameworks helped us generate the initial a priori codebook (Dexter & Richardson, 2020; ISTE, 2014). The whole team reviewed the a priori codebook twice. During the coding process, we formed four coding teams to analyze the articles based on the four research questions. For RQs 1 and 3, we began with independent coding and coded each source utilizing the predetermined codes in the a priori codebook. For RQs 2 and 4, we began with open coding and coded the sources again with the generated codes (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Once the initial coding was finished, the coders compared and discussed the coding until they reached an agreement. Each team worked on these steps until all the codes were discussed and the coders reached a consensus. Afterward, the whole group met, and we discussed categorizing the codes and identifying themes that emerged from the coding. Finally, we synthesized the results and selected evidence to answer the research questions.

Results

Renewed Definition and Best Practices of Technology Leadership

Addressing RQs 1 and 2 on the definition and best practices of technology leadership for K-12 administrators, we carefully analyzed and coded all 36 included articles and then synthesized the codes into themes, which are the components of the proposed renewed definition for K-12 administrators’ technology leadership. The updated definition of K-12 administrators’ technology leadership includes seven domains, expanding from the two conceptual frameworks undergirding this study (Dexter & Richardson, 2020; ISTE, 2014). We define that K-12 school/district administrators should be the leaders of technology use and integration in their schools/districts who do the following:

1. Establish and convey the vision and strategic plan
2. Create and facilitate a high-quality digital-age learning culture for students
3. Build and sustain excellence in professional practices and capacity
4. Create and maintain a supportive organization for learning
5. Connect and engage with external partners
6. Plan and facilitate systemic improvement
7. Promote and ensure digital citizenship.

Figure 3 illustrates the seven domains in the school/district context. Appendix B provides a detailed list of each domain’s best practices.

Figure 3
Renewed Definition of K-12 Administrators’ Technology Leadership

Impacting Factors on K-12 Administrators’ Technology Leadership

Technology leadership is important for K-12 administrators who must make effective technology integration happen in their schools and districts. Addressing RQ 3, during open coding, a number of variables were reported in the included literature as having an effect on an administrator’s capacity to provide effective leadership for technology integration. The factors identified could be either positive or negative.

ICT competence was among the most often noted factors (Edelberg, 2020; Sterrett & Richardson, 2019). Administrators must be seen by their faculty as having a level of proficiency with technology to act as role models for using technology regularly and being technology savvy (Banoǧlu et al., 2016; Karakose et al., 2021), encouraging and supporting faculty (Bingham, 2021; Edelberg, 2020; Gonzales, 2020), having an attitude that values technology use (Bingham, 2021; Shvardak, 2021), creating a culture that fosters and supports risk-taking (Bingham, 2021; Richardson & Sterrett, 2018), being open-minded, flexible, and adaptive (Richardson et al., 2016), and advocating for technology use through engagement of all stakeholders (Ellis et al, 2021; Sterrett & Richardson, 2019).

A second factor is related to vision and planning. Administrators must have a vision in order to push the school to where it needs to be (Apsorn et al., 2019; Bingham, 2021; Dexter & Richardson, 2020). Organizational change cannot happen if there is no vision. Vision needs to include realistic plans on how to change the school culture to embrace technology (Bingham, 2021), hiring people who share the same vision and attitudes (Dexter & Richardson, 2020; Ellis et al., 2021), communicating and sharing leadership responsibilities by establishing trust, sharing knowledge, and building respect (Gonzales, 2020; Karakose et al., 2021; Sterrett & Richardson, 2019), allocating resources (Apsorn, 2019; Bingham, 2021; Dexter & Richardson, 2020; Ellis et al., 2021), and ensuring adequate PD for faculty and self (AlAjmi, 2022; Esplin et al., 2018; Raman et al., 2019).

Factors noted in the literature having a negative impact on effective technology integration are related to bureaucracy (Sincar, 2013), resistance to innovation (Ellis et al., 2021; Gonzales, 2020), lack of resources (Apsorn et al., 2019), and experience/preparedness of either faculty or leadership (Apsorn et al., 2019; Ellis et al., 2021). Having vision was seen primarily as a positive, but a lack of vision or lack of self-efficacy was seen as a negative factor (Dexter & Richardson, 2020) when it came to effectively leading for technology.

Recommendations for Cultivating K-12 Administrators’ Technology Leadership

Addressing RQ 4, the included articles offered strong recommendations on supporting K-12 administrators in developing their technology leadership, which is crucial for systemic school change. These recommendations can be categorized into three bands: (a) providing professional learning opportunities, (b) setting up an accountability system, and (c) enhancing preservice preparation.

Providing Professional Learning Opportunities

K-12 administrators need ongoing and targeted PD on several topics: addressing technology fear and anxiety (Bektaș, 2014; Űnal et al., 2015), using technology tools (Afshari et al., 2012; Ellis et al., 2021), setting technology goals for schools (Bektaș, 2014), implementing technology integration into the school (AlAjimi, 2022; Esplin et al., 2018), adopting transformational leadership (Pautz & Sadera, 2017; Richardson et al., 2016), and utilizing distributed leadership for school reform and change (Bingham, 2021; Pautz & Sadera, 2017). We need PD programs that recognize the factors impacting administrators’ technology leadership and develop their technology self-efficacy to alleviate their fears and anxiety (Űnal et al., 2015). Special attention should be given to the design of such PD programs, including design features that target administrators’ technology self-efficacy, attitude toward technology, technology integration self-efficacy, and competencies in technology use and integration. Continuously developing technology skills and understanding the importance of technology integration in schools will help lessen administrators’ technology fear and anxiety (Afshari, Ghavifekr et al., 2012; Bektaș, 2014). Meanwhile, it is important to highlight that administrators must themselves learn to use technology tools and integrate technology into instruction effectively (Ellis et al., 2021; Esplin et al., 2018).

Besides learning from the PD programs on technology use and integration, administrators benefit from professional learning on leadership practices, such as transformational (Pautz & Sadera, 2017; Richardson et al., 2016) and distributed leadership (see also Bingham, 2021). Administrators should learn how to lead school change and initiatives. Transformational leadership is a framework fit for these goals, which outlines a few focus areas: understanding the change process, supporting risk-taking and innovation, growing as an instructional leader, responding to challenges, and fostering relationships (Pautz & Sadera, 2017). At the same time, administrators should learn and use distributed leadership for school change and reform (Bingham, 2021; Pautz & Sadera, 2017).

Technology integration initiatives require strong, ongoing, and meaningful collaboration from various stakeholders, such as administrators, coaches, teachers, media specialists, students, parents, and community partners. Practices of distributed leadership greatly facilitate the involvement of diverse stakeholders. However, these practices do not come naturally, so administrators will greatly benefit from professional learning and sharing of this topic.

Setting Up an Accountability System

A sustainable accountability system is needed to provide long-term support to K-12 administrators. First, administrators must be competent in using technology tools and promoting effective technology integration in their schools (Edelberg, 2020; Ellis et al., 2021). Administrators are the pedagogical leaders of their schools and districts. This goal requires them to recognize that technology integration is more than providing students and teachers with access to and how-to guides of the technology tools. Instead, administrators should deeply understand that technology integration is meaningfully and effectively utilizing TPACK to use pedagogical methods and technology to achieve content-specific learning outcomes (Edelberg, 2020). At the same time, the accountability system for ensuring administrators’ competencies in technology use and integration helps them meet state and national professional standards, a crucial component of their practices (Ellis et al., 2021).

Second, administrators should be encouraged to more broadly use the Internet and other technology tools in order to serve as role models with meaningful social interaction for teachers, students, parents, and community stakeholders (Banoǧlu et al., 2016; Styron Jr., & Styron, 2010). Administrators should demonstrate their professional use of online tools, such as emails, social media tools, educational technologies, and communication tools approved by official district policies. Attention should be paid to the quality and quantity of these uses so administrators can serve as effective role models of responsible technology use and sound communicators and collaborators for teachers, students, parents, and community stakeholders (Richardson et al., 2016).

To support both goals, teachers’ technology-related Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) should be expanded to include administrators (Banoǧlu et al., 2016). PLNs can provide administrators with timely and targeted professional learning opportunities about using emerging educational technology and integration strategies. It is also highly helpful to set up PLNs just for administrators so they can share examples and best practices for managing technology integration effectively. Besides the interactions in the PLNs, administrators will benefit from the organized events to share experiences and disseminate sound leadership practices for technology integration and systemic change.

Enhancing Preservice Programs

Lastl it is of utmost importance to enhance the preservice preparation programs of educational leaders so administrators get ample preparation on both modeling technology use and leading technology integration (AlAjmi, 2022; Gonzales, 2020). Preservice programs should study in-service administrators’ professional learning needs and design programs to meet those needs (AlAjmi, 2022). The following design components should be considered. First, preservice leadership candidates must learn about educational technology tools, their importance in education, and their implementation in schools during their programs (Bektaș, 2014). Nationally recognized frameworks and standards should guide this preparation that strategically combines technology integration and school administration. Preservice programs should intentionally design projects and assessments that let aspiring administrators show mastery of these standards (Gonzales, 2020).

Second, teacher educators should design fieldwork experiences aligned with renowned technology integration standards, for example, the ISTE standards, namely, providing opportunities for candidates to observe and intern at one-to-one schools is beneficial (Gonzales, 2020; Styron Jr. & Styron, 2010; Ugur & Koç, 2019). During the field experiences, candidates have opportunities to observe and potentially participate in developing a vision for developing a technology plan, seeking funding for technology initiatives, engaging in social networks, promoting technology equity while attending to legal and ethical issues, and so on (Styron Jr. & Styron, 2010). All in all, to develop candidates as future technology integration leaders on their campuses, administrator preparation needs to infuse the marriage of technology integration and school administration into all courses in their programs (Styron Jr. & Styron, 2010; Ugur & Koç, 2019). In the following section, we provide some concrete suggestions and directions for future research.

Discussion

This systematic literature review provides a renewed definition of K-12 administrators’ technology leadership with seven domains, an overview of factors that impact the administrator’s ability to practice technology leadership, a list of 67 best practices, and a set of recommendations to strengthen aspiring and practicing administrators’ technology leadership. The findings from this review, which present specific practices related to overarching themes of technology leadership, include establishing and conveying the vision and strategic plan, creating and facilitating a high-quality digital-age learning culture for students, building and sustaining excellence in professional practices and capacity, creating and maintaining a supportive organization for learning, connecting and engaging with external partners, planning and facilitating systemic improvement, and promoting and ensuring digital citizenship.

The factors impacting administrators’ technology leadership highlight both opportunities and challenges they face. Positive factors such as having and communicating a vision, fostering a culture of trust and collaboration, attending technology-related PD, and modeling effective technology can assist leaders with their leadership skills. However, negative factors, including lack of resources, resistance to technology, and bureaucratic obstacles, underscore the need for additional resources and research in this area.

Teach and Practice Transformational Technology Leadership

Transformational leadership is characterized by the ability of school leaders to establish common goals and shared vision, cultivate mutual trust and support, empower teachers to take risks and experiment, act as role models, support and develop creativity, attend to individual needs and concerns, and support PD (Berkovich, 2018; Calo et al., 2023; Li & Petersen, 2022; Mohd Siraj et al., 2023). Because school leaders influence the quality of teaching and learning both directly and indirectly (Godes & Dioso, 2023; Karakose & Tulubas, 2023), developing the characteristics associated with transformational leadership skills will positively influence the experiences and attitudes of their faculty (Calo et al., 2023).

Principals and administrators make decisions that affect the entire school through their positions as leaders. As transformational leaders, administrators embrace a culture that promotes collaborative partnerships and encourages innovative technologies and strategies for teaching and learning. School leadership that embraces a transformational leadership style is perceived to be most effective in the literature (Berkovich, 2018; Capinpuyan & Prado, 2024; Menon, 2024). Transformative leadership style can and should be taught to both aspiring and practicing administrators so they embrace, create, and maintain a school culture that promotes collaborative partnerships and encourages innovative technologies and strategies for teaching and learning (Afshari, Bakar et al., 2012; Baker et al., 2020; Pautz & Sadera, 2017; Schmitz et al., 2023).

Teach and Practice Distributed Technology Leadership

Technology integration in schools needs systemic change with multiple layers at different levels. To facilitate such complex systemic change, leadership should be distributed so stakeholders can create visions and make informed decisions together to shoulder the responsibilities that match their expertise (Bingham, 2021). Distributed leadership is a practical and conceptual perspective to view leadership as being distributed across a group of people at various levels, formally and informally (Fletcher & Kaufer, 2003; Spillane et al., 2001). Specifically, distributed technology leadership involves sharing the responsibilities for leadership across stakeholders and empowering other school and community stakeholders, such as teachers, coaches, librarians, and staff, to take leadership roles in technology integration efforts. In other words, this method can also be traced to being called leading from the middle, which distinguishes itself from the traditional top-down or bottom-up leadership models (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2020). Hargreaves and Shirley (2012) outlined seven principles of this leadership model: responsiveness to diversity, responsibility, initiative, integration, transparency, humility, and design.

Utilizing distributed technology leadership is a helpful approach advocated in the literature (Bingham, 2021; Pautz & Sadera, 2017). K-12 administrators utilize various strategies, such as providing opportunities and building capacity for a more collaborative, horizontal leadership structure, empowering the instructional coaches to mentor teachers in developing digital skills, facilitating classroom implementation, fostering collaborative environments, providing target PD to teachers and staff, and entrusting teacher leaders to lead PD and mentoring efforts. Administrators should give other stakeholders explicit guidance, resources, trust, and autonomy during the process.

By distributing leadership, administrators can empower teachers and other stakeholders to take ownership of technology integration efforts. Similarly, leading from the middle makes administrators stay close to teaching and learning, focus on student-centered initiatives, build interdisciplinary teams and committees to foster collaboration, and build a professional and collaborative culture that emphasizes trust, initiative, and shared responsibility (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2020). Like transformational technology leadership, distributed technology and leading from the middle leadership models should be taught to aspiring and practicing administrators.

Technology Leadership Preparation for Aspiring Leaders

The role of the school administrator has evolved significantly, with technology leadership now an integral part of school leadership. As technology evolves, current and future administrators must ensure they are adequately prepared to lead in the 21st century. This preparation includes seeking both formal and informal technology learning opportunities and committing to being a lifelong learner.

Traditional educational leadership programs have not been able to create environments that combine coursework and experiences to ensure leaders master the ISTE standards before they are placed in a leadership role (Ugur & Koc, 2019). Therefore, leaders are entering schools with limited exposure to the strategic implementation of technology. It is recommended that educational leadership programs integrate technology leadership preparation into their curriculum in the following ways.

Embed Technology Leadership Across the Curriculum

Instead of having only a standalone technology course, technology integration should be incorporated into all aspects of the curriculum (Ugar & Koc, 2019). This approach will ensure that aspiring leaders understand how to utilize and leverage technology in all aspects of leadership, including instructional leadership, resource allocation, and school improvement planning.

Provide Authentic Technology-Related Field Experiences

Educational leader candidates should have structured opportunities to observe and engage in leadership tasks at one-to-one laptop schools or schools with a strong technology program. Exposure to schools that effectively integrate technology can provide future leaders with the insight and skills necessary to create a technology-rich environment on their own campus.

Align Field Work With ISTE Standards

Fieldwork experience and assignments in such programs should also be aligned with ISTE standards (Gonzales, 2020), ensuring that aspiring leaders develop competencies in visionary planning, instructional technology leadership, digital citizenship, and the strategic use of data-driven decision-making (ISTE, 2014). Additionally, in accordance with ISTE, preparation programs should emphasize technology-related policy development and ethical considerations to fully prepare leaders to work with the evolving digital landscape. Our renewed definition and best practices provide an ideal framework for such a curriculum.

Ongoing Technology Integration Professional Learning for Leaders

Leadership and technology training should not stop once individuals are in a leadership role. Ongoing professional learning is necessary for leaders to stay current and up-to-date on best practices related to technology integration and leadership development. Educational leaders must prioritize technology leadership professional learning as a PD topic (Esplin et al., 2018). Ongoing technology training can be formal, such as workshops, team training, and conferences, or informal, such as peer study groups, administrators’ journals, and communities of practice (Sparks & Hirsch, 2000). Administrators can also leverage social media groups and platforms to create PLNs specific to technology leadership (Gustafson, 2016).

Implications for Future Research

This systematic literature review not only contributes to renewing the definition and identifying best practices for K-12 administrators’ technology leadership but also calls for additional research on this topic. As administrators play a crucial role in technology integration in schools (Dexter & Richardson, 2020), understanding how leadership skills specific to technology integration can be strengthened is critical. Almost all included articles advocate for more empirical research on aspiring administrators’ preparation for technology leadership, which is relatively less studied. At the same time, there is a strong need to design targeted professional learning programs and investigate their effectiveness and impact on practicing administrators’ technology leadership. More empirical studies are needed on how these in-service administrators practice and implement their technology leadership in their unique contexts. Researchers should explore how different school contextual factors influence the effectiveness of technology leadership practices. This study also highlights the need for additional research, especially around the factors directly impacting administrators’ technology leadership ability and practices. Furthermore, the field needs more empirical studies on the impact of administrators’ technology leadership on teachers’ technology integration in the classrooms and students’ learning outcomes. Researchers should also investigate the long-term effects of strong technology leadership on school performance.

Last but not least, future studies could use the renewed definition and best practices to design research instruments, such as surveys, interview questions, observation protocols, and a priori codebook, to test and refine the operational definition of K-12 administrators’ technology leadership. Empirical evidence is greatly needed to test out the renewed definition.

Implications for Future Practices

As technology continues to play a more prominent role in educational settings, the role of school leadership has to change with it to include the role of technology leader. Principals and administrators must develop transformational leadership characteristics to fully engage in the change process, provide support and resources to faculty, encourage risk-taking and innovation, respond to challenges from inside and outside the organization, and foster relationships. They must become role models and learn to leverage technology effectively by creating a shared vision, support, and provision of PD resources.

However, the literature indicates that principals feel poorly prepared to take on the role of technology leader (AlAjmi, 2022; Apsorn et al., 2019; Ellis et al., 2021). Thankfully, these skills can be taught. Effective change starts at the top but can only be successful when those at the top are able to model, support, and make the necessary changes that will motivate and encourage everyone in order to make it happen (Karakose et al., 2021).

Administrators receive multiple forms of professional learning throughout their tenure as leaders. Embedding technology leadership professional learning into all aspects of PD, including preservice training and ongoing PD, will ensure leaders are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to create a technology-forward environment within their organization. PD developers should research, adopt, and adapt evidence-based design elements to guide the targeted professional learning programs. It is also important that schools and districts develop strategic and practical policies and information for the stakeholders that support effective technology leadership in schools. Sound evaluation criteria are also needed to provide a framework for assessing and improving administrators’ technology leadership skills as an accountability system.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this systematic literature review provides a renewed and comprehensive definition of K–12 administrators’ technology leadership, organized into seven key domains and supported by 67 best practices. It highlights both the opportunities and challenges administrators face, emphasizing the importance of vision, collaboration, professional learning, and modeling effective technology integration. To further strengthen technology leadership, it is essential to teach and practice transformative, distributed, and leading from the middle leadership models — approaches that empower administrators to drive innovation and initiatives of technology integration and emerging technologies, share leadership responsibilities, and influence change across all levels of the educational system. Educators, preparation programs, and policymakers must act now to embed these leadership models into training and professional learning frameworks, ensuring that current and future administrators are equipped to lead in a digital age. Future research should explore how these leadership models impact technology integration outcomes, especially teachers’ practices and students’ learning outcomes, investigate scalable strategies for overcoming systemic barriers, and examine the long-term effects of technology leadership on student learning and school improvement.

References

Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., & Siraj, S. (2012). Factors affecting the transformational leadership role of principals in implementing ICT in schools. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 164–176.

Afshari, M., Ghavifekr, S., Siraj, S., & Ab Samad, R. (2012). Transformational leadership role of principals in implementing informational and communication technologies in schools. Life Science Journal, 9(1), 281–284.

Aksal, F. A. (2015). Are headmasters digital leaders in school culture? Education and Science, 40(182), 77–86.

AlAjmi, M. (2022). The impact of digital leadership on teachers’ technology integration during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait. International Journal of Educational Research, 112, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101928

A’mar, F., & Eleyan, D. (2022). Effect of principal’s technology leadership on teacher’s technology integration. International Journal of Instruction, 15(1), 781–798. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15145a

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

Baker, S., Decman, J., & Willis, J.M. (2020). Talk or walk: School principals and shared instructional leadership. School Leadership Review, 15(1), 17.

Banoǧlu, K., Vanderlinde, R., & Çetin, M. (2016). Investigation of principals’ technology leadership profiles in the context of schools’ Learning organization culture and ICT infrastructure: F@tih project schools vs. the others. Education and Science, 41(188), 83–98.

Bektaş, F. (2014). School principals’ personal constructs regarding technology: An analysis based on decision-making grid technique. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(5), 1767–1775.

Berkovich, I. (2018). Will it sink or will it float: Putting three common conceptions about principals’ transformational leadership to the test. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(6), 888–907.

Bingham, A. (2021). How distributed leadership facilitates technology integration: A case study of “pilot teachers.” Teachers College Record, 123, 070304, 1–34.

Calo, F., Sancino, A., & Scognamiglio, F. (2024). Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in the Public Administration (PA) scholar field: a bibliometric analysis and some conceptual considerations. Public Management Review, 26(10), 3013–3039.

Capinpuyan, L. E., & Prado, N. I. (2024). Digital leadership, emotional intelligence, leadership styles, and performance of basic education teachers: A causal model. Psychology & Education, 26(9), 994–1017. https://doi-org.stthomtx.idm.oclc.org/10.5281/zenodo.13957554

Cherner, T., & Mitchell, C. (2021). Deconstructing EdTech frameworks based on their creators, features, and usefulness. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(1), 91–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1773852

Crompton, H. (2023). Evidence of the ISTE Standards for Educators leading to learning gains. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 39(4), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2023.2244089

Dexter, S., & Richardson, J. (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

Edelberg, T. (2020). Emphasizing technology over instruction: Adapting a 20-year-old survey to examine the climate of K-12 instructional technology leadership in public school districts. Journal of School Leadership, 30(3), 257–274.

Ellis, M. L., Lu, Y.-H., & Fine-Cole, B. (2021). Digital learning for North Carolina educational leaders. TechTrends, 65(5), 696–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00649-x

Fletcher, J. K., & Kaufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership paradox and possibility. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, (pp. 21–47). Sage Publications.

Esplin, N., Stewart, C., & Thurston, T. (2018). Technology leadership perceptions of Utah elementary school principals. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(4), 306–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.1487351

Godes, A. R., & Dioso, E. D. (2024). School head’s instructional supervisory practices and the performance of the teachers: A correlational study. Psychology & Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(7), 857–873. https://doiorg.stthomtx.idm.oclc.org/10.5281/zenodo.13310054

Gonzales, M. (2020). School technology leadership vision and challenges Perspectives from American school administrators. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(4), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2019-0075

Gustafson, B. R. (2016). Renegade leadership: Creating innovative schools for digital-age students. Corwin Press.

Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. L. (2012). The global fourth way: The quest for educational excellence. Corwin.

Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. L. (2020). Leading from the middle: Its nature, origins and importance. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(1), 92–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2019-0013

International Society for Technology in Education. (2014). ISTE standards for administrators. https://www. iste.org/standards/standards-for-administrators

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). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313448

Kaya-Kasikci, S., Zayim-Kurtay, M., & Kondakci, Y. (2023). The role of leadership in developing a climate of technology integration in public schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104234

Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96(3), 118–121.

Li, S. C., & Petersen, K. B. (2022). Does ICT matter? Unfolding the complex multilevel structural relationship between technology use and academic achievements in PISA 2015. Educational Technology & Society, 25(4), 43–55.

Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A., & Cavanaugh, C. (2013). Leaders of school technology innovation: A confirmatory factor analysis of the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire (CFSQ). Journal of Educational Administration, 51(5), 576–593. doi: 10.1108/JEA-01-2012-0011

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. ASCD.

Menon, M. E. (2024). Transformational leadership and educational outcomes: A literature review. Journal of Education, Innovation and Communication, 6(1), 98–115.

Mohd Siraj, M. A. M., Rami, A. A. M., Omar, R., Abdul Aziz, N. A., & Mohd Anuar, M. A. (2023). The relationship between principals’ leaderships towards TVET teachers’ motivation in implementing ICT. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 15(3), 79–91.

Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76–78.

Öner, C., Öner, G., Ercan, R.O., & Üce, K. (2024). The impact of school principals’ leadership roles on educational objectives: An analysis of personal and psychological characteristics. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 15(55), 244–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijoess.4420

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. PLOS Medicine, 18(3), e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583

Pautz, S., & Sadera, W. A. (2017). Leadership practice in a one-to-one computing initiative: Principals’ experiences in a technology driven, second-order change. Computers in the Schools, 34(1–2), 45–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1296314

Raman, A., Thannimalai, R., & Ismail, S. (2019). Principals’ technology leadership and its effect on teachers’ technology integration in 21st century classrooms. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12428a

Richardson, J. W., Beck, D., LaFrance, J., & McLeod, S. (2016). Job attainment and perceived role differences of cyberschool leaders. Educational Technology and Society, 19(1), 211–222. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.1.211

Richardson, J., & Sterrett, W. (2018). District technology leadership then and now: A comparative study of district technology leadership from 2001 to 2014. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(4), 589–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18769046

Saldaňa, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.

Schmitz, M., 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

Sheninger, E. C., & Murray, T. C. (2017). Learning transformed: 8 keys to designing tomorrow’s schools, today. ASCD.

Shvardak, M. (2021). Coaching technology to prepare candidates for leadership roles in a variety of educational settings. Postmodern Openings, 12(1), 202–223. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/12.1/255

Sincar, M. (2013). Challenges school principals facing in the context of technology leadership. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 1273–1284.

Sparks, D., & Hirsch, S. (2000). Learning to lead, leading to learn. National Staff Development Council.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.

Sterrett, W., & Richardson, J. (2019). The change-ready leadership of technology-savvy superintendents. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0160

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage.

Styron Jr., R. A., & Styron, J. (2010). Connecting technology with student achievement: The use of technology by Blue Ribbon School Principals. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 9(2), 106–111.

Ugur, N. G., & Koç, T. (2019). Leading and teaching with technology: School principals’ perspective. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 7(1), 42–71.

Ünal, E., Uzun, A., & Karatas, S. (2015). An examination of school administrators’ technology leadership self-efficacy. Croatian Journal of Education: Hrvatski časopis za odgoj i obrazovanje, 17(1), 195–215.

Appendix A
Included Articles

A’mar, F., & Eleyan, D. (2022). Effect of principal’s technology leadership on teacher’s technology integration. International Journal of Instruction, 15(1), 781–798. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15145a

Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., & Siraj, S. (2012). Factors affecting the transformational leadership role of principals in implementing ICT in schools. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 164–176.

Afshari, M., Ghavifekr, S., Siraj, S., & Ab Samad, R. (2012). Transformational leadership role of principals in implementing informational and communication technologies in schools. Life Science Journal, 9(1), 281–284.

AlAjmi, M. (2022). The impact of digital leadership on teachers’ technology integration during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait. International Journal of Educational Research, 112, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101928

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

Baker, S., Decman, J., & Willis, J.M. (2020). Talk or walk: School principals and shared instructional leadership. School Leadership Review, 15(1), 17.

Banoglu, K. (2011). School principals’ technology leadership competency and technology coordinatorship. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(1), 208–213.

Banoǧlu, K., Vanderlinde, R., & Çetin, M. (2016). Investigation of principals’ technology leadership profiles in the context of schools’ Learning organization culture and ICT infrastructure: F@tih project schools vs. the others. Education and Science, 41(188), 83–98.

Bektaş, F. (2014). School principals’ personal constructs regarding technology: An analysis based on decision-making grid technique. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(5), 1767–1775.

Bingham, A. (2021). How distributed leadership facilitates technology integration: A case study of “pilot teachers.” Teachers College Record, 123, 070304, 1–34.

Cakir, R. (2012). Technology integration and technology leadership in schools as learning organizations. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 273–282.

Chang, E. (2019). Bridging an engagement gap: Towards equitable, community-based technology leadership practice. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 22(5), 536–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1492504

Dexter, S., & Richardson, J. (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

Edelberg, T. (2020). Emphasizing technology over instruction: Adapting a 20-year-old survey to examine the climate of K-12 instructional technology leadership in public school districts. Journal of School Leadership, 30(3), 257–274.

Ellis, M. L., Lu, Y.-H., & Fine-Cole, B. (2021). Digital learning for North Carolina educational leaders. TechTrends, 65(5), 696–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00649-x

Esplin, N., Stewart, C., & Thurston, T. (2018). Technology leadership perceptions of Utah elementary school principals. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(4), 306–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.1487351

Gonzales, M. (2020). School technology leadership vision and challenges Perspectives from American school administrators. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(4), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2019-0075

Howard, B. B., McClannon, T. W., & Wallace, P. R. (2014). Collaboration through role play among graduate students in educational leadership in distance learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.868665

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). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313448

Kaya-Kasikci, S., Zayim-Kurtay, M., & Kondakci, Y. (2023). The role of leadership in developing a climate of technology integration in public schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104234

Kör, H., Erbay, H., & Engin, M. (2016). Technology leadership of education administrators and innovative technologies in education: A case study of Çorum city. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(n12A), 140–150.

Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A., & Cavanaugh, C. (2013). Leaders of school technology innovation: A confirmatory factor analysis of the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire (CFSQ). Journal of Educational Administration, 51(5), 576–593. DOI: 10.1108/JEA-01-2012-0011

Metcalf, W., & LaFrance, J. (2013). Technology leadership preparedness: principals’ perceptions. Journal of Research in Education, 23(1), 58–75.

Pautz, S., & Sadera, W. A. (2017). Leadership practice in a one-to-one computing initiative: Principals’ experiences in a technology driven, second-order change. Computers in the Schools, 34(1–2), 45–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1296314

Raman, A., Thannimalai, R., & Ismail, S. (2019). Principals’ technology leadership and its effect on teachers’ technology integration in 21st century classrooms. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12428a

Richardson, J. W., Beck, D., LaFrance, J., & McLeod, S. (2016). Job attainment and perceived role differences of cyberschool leaders. Educational Technology and Society, 19(1), 211–222. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.1.211

Richardson, J., & Sterrett, W. (2018). District technology leadership then and now: A comparative study of district technology leadership from 2001 to 2014. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(4), 589–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18769046

Schmitz, M., 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

Shvardak, M. (2021). Coaching technology to prepare candidates for leadership roles in a variety of educational settings. Postmodern Openings, 12(1), 202–223. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/12.1/255

Shyr, W.-J. (2017). Developing the principal technology leadership competency indicators for technical high schools in K-12 in Taiwan. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 2085–2093. DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2017.01215a

Sincar, M. (2013). Challenges school principals facing in the context of technology leadership. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 1273–1284.

Sterrett, W., & Richardson, J. (2019). The change-ready leadership of technology-savvy superintendents. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0160

Styron Jr., R. A., & Styron, J. (2010). Connecting technology with student achievement: The use of technology by Blue Ribbon School Principals. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 9(2), 106–111.

Turan, S., & Gökbulut, B. (2022). An analysis of the technology leadership behaviours of school principals from the perspective of teachers. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 21(1), 35-44.

Ugur, N. G., & Koç, T. (2019). Leading and teaching with technology: School principals’ perspective. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 7(1), 42–71.

Ünal, E., Uzun, A., & Karatas, S. (2015). An examination of school administrators’ technology leadership self-efficacy. Croatian Journal of Education: Hrvatski časopis za odgoj i obrazovanje,, 17(1), 195–215.

Appendix B
Renewed Definition of K-12 Administrators’ Technology Leadership and Its Best Practices

Domain 1: Establish and convey the vision and strategic plan

1.1 Creating, articulating, and stewarding shared vision, mission, and strategic plan

1.2 Implementing vision and strategic plan by setting goals and performance expectations

1.3 Modeling aspirational and ethical practices

1.4 Communicating the state of the vision broadly

1.5 Promoting the use of data for continual improvement

1.6 Tending to external accountability

1.7 Advocating at multiple levels for policies, programs, and funding to support the implementation of the vision and strategic plan

1.8 Making organizational decisions and policies about technology integration

1.9 Budgeting and planning for technology

1.10 Building and monitoring technology infrastructure outlined in the strategic plan

1.11 Ensuring technology resources are distributed equitably among students and staff

1.12 Building partnerships for technology plans

Domain 2: Create and facilitate a high-quality digital-age learning culture for students

2.1 Maintaining safety and orderliness for students learning using technology

2.2 Personalizing the environment to reflect students’ backgrounds

2.3 Developing and monitoring curricular program

2.4 Developing and monitoring instructional program

2.5 Developing and monitoring the assessment program

2.6 Developing and monitoring learning-centered environments with technology

2.7 Ensuring instructional innovation focused on continuous improvement of digital age learning

2.8 Establishing effective practice in the study of technology and its infusion across the curriculum

2.9 Promoting technology integration implementation

2.10 Encouraging learning with the support of technology

Domain 3: Build and sustain excellence in professional practices and capacity

3.1 Selecting the right fit

3.2 Providing individualized consideration

3.3 Building trusting relationships

3.4 Providing opportunities to learn for the whole faculty, including leaders

3.5 Supporting, buffering, and recognizing staff

3.6 Engendering responsibility for promoting learning

3.7 Creating communities of practices

3.8 Modeling and promoting the frequent and effective use of technology for learning

3.9 Staying abreast of educational research and emerging trends regarding the effective use of technology

3.10 Encouraging evaluation of new technologies for their potential to improve student learning

3.11 Promoting and participating in local, national, and global professional learning communities that stimulate innovation, creativity, and digital age collaboration

3.12 Planning, offering, and evaluating targeted and ongoing technology integration professional development

3.13 Providing teachers with professional and technical support in implementing technology

3.14 Modeling the transformational components of charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration

Domain 4: Create and maintain a supportive organization for learning

4.1 Acquiring and allocating resources strategically for mission and vision

4.2 Considering context to maximize organizational functioning

4.3 Building collaborative processes for decision making

4.4 Sharing and distributing leadership

4.5 Tending to and building diversity and equity

4.6 Maintaining ambitious and high expectations and standards

4.7 Strengthening and optimizing school culture

4.8 Being confident as a leader in technology integration

4.9 Being a change agent and flexible and adaptive to change in technology integration

4.10 Motivating staff and students

4.11 Trusting teachers’ expertise

4.12 Actively participating in problem-solving processes

4.13 Monitoring, attending to, and affecting the concerns and needs of teachers and staff

4.14 Practicing empathy

Domain 5: Connect and engage with external partners

5.1 Building productive relationships with families and external partners in the community

5.2 Engaging families and communities in collaborative processes to strengthen student learning

5.3 Anchoring schools in the community

5.4 Promoting and modeling effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders using digital age tools

5.5 Being visible with an online presence and demonstrating excellent use of social media

5.6 Providing teachers with professional and technical support in implementing technology

5.7 Being positive and confident as a leader in technology integration

Domain 6: Plan and facilitate systemic improvement

6.1 Leading purposeful change to maximize the achievement of learning goals through the appropriate use of technology and media-rich resources

6.2 Collaborating to establish metrics, collect and analyze data, interpret results, and share findings to improve staff performance and student learning

6.3 Recruiting and retaining highly competent personnel who use technology creatively and proficiently to advance academic and operational goals

6.4 Establishing and leveraging strategic partnerships to support systemic improvement

6.5 Establishing and maintaining a robust infrastructure for technology, including integrated, interoperable technology systems to support management, operations, teaching, and learning

6.6 Thinking creatively and strategically about the long-term challenges and opportunities that technology provides in their district and education at large

Domain 7: Promote and ensure digital citizenship

7.1 Ensuring equitable access to appropriate digital tools and resources to meet the needs of all learners

7.2 Promoting, modeling, and establishing policies for safe, legal, and ethical use of digital information and technology

7.3 Promoting and modeling responsible social interactions related to the use of technology and information

7.4 Modeling and facilitating the development of a shared cultural understanding and involvement in global issues through the use of contemporary communication and collaboration tools