DIGITAL LEADERSHIP OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS IN RELATION

TO TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS PERFORMANCE: INPUTS

FOR TECHNO-LEARNING DEVELOPMENT MODEL

By: Arneil A. Pagatpatan, PhD

Teacher III – NHS - DepEd Marikina

Keywords: Digital Leadership, Techno-Learning Development Model, Teachers’ Performance,

Principal Performances, School Administrators’ Digital Leadership in relation to Teacher
and Principal Performances

Introduction

As schools change, leadership must as well change. With society becoming

more and more reliant on technology, it is incumbent upon leaders to harness the
power of digital technologies in order to create school cultures that are transparent,
relevant, meaningful, engaging, and inspiring. In order to set the stage for increasing
achievement and to establish a greater sense of community pride for the work being
done in the schools, the change to the way schools are led must begin. To do this,
leaders must understand the origins of fear and misconceptions that often surround
the use of technology, such as social media and mobile devices. Effective leadership
is extremely important in any system, but it is even more imperative in schools if
learners are provided with a world-class education. This education has to be
relevant, meaningful, and applicable.. Digital leadership takes into account recent
changes such as ubiquitous connectivity, open-source technology, mobile devices,
and personalization. It represents a dramatic shift from how schools have been run
and structured for over a century. What started out as a personal use of technology
has become systemic to every facet of leadership
Digital leadership can thus be defined as establishing direction, influencing
others, and initiating sustainable change through the access of information, and
establishing relationships in order to anticipate changes pivotal to school success in
the future. It requires a dynamic combination of mindset, behaviors, and skills that
are employed to change and/or enhance school culture through the assistance of
technology. The basic tenets of leadership are still valuable and needed for our
schools to succeed. These foundational elements will never change. However, the
changing times, as well as society’s reliance on technology, demand an evolution of
leadership practices to create schools that learners deserve and need to succeed in
today's world. It all begins with trust. Digital leaders must give up control and trust
students and teachers to use real-world tools to unleash creativity and a passion for
learning. (Sheninger, 2014).
There is a gap between the current school culture and leadership style and
the digital culture and digital leadership style that needs to be addressed in order to
support the next generation of learners. Digital leadership is a new construction of
leadership that connects leaders with technology. In fact digital leadership is not only
the use of technology, but also a strategic view of school culture that focuses on
engagement and achievement (Askal, 2015).
The researcher, being the technology enthusiast as well as an information
and communications technology educator has urged to do his concerns pertaining to
the digital leadership through a techno – learning model which will be based on the
results of the study. Likewise, the researcher wants to know such significant
undertakings in dealing with digitalized institutions in the event of high and fast
changing communications and educational innovation. Thus, it is the purpose of this
study to be directed primarily in all public high schools of the division of Marikina,
Marikina city during the school year 2018 – 2019.

METHOD
The researcher utilized the descriptive method of research. Since the study
aimed to determine the school administrators’ digital leadership in relation to
teachers and school performances, the descriptive method is suited in obtaining
facts, events, current condition and the characteristic of every school administrators
and teachers in school settings.
According to McNeill (2018), it is a methodology that is not exclusive to
market researchers but one that can apply to a variety of research methods used in
healthcare, psychology, and education. At its core, descriptive research seeks to
describe the characteristics or behavior of the participants. The purpose of the
descriptive research is to describe, as well as to explain, or to validate some sort of
hypothesis or objective when it comes to a specific group of people.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

School Administrators’ Demographic Profile

The profile of the respondents was tabulated and computed according to the
following classifications: institutional position, years in service and educational
attainment. These were presented in table 1 to 3.
It can be noted in Table 1 that out of one hundred ten (110) school
administrators of public secondary schools in the schools division office Marikina, 45
or 41.00% were head teachers III, 12 or 11.00% were subject coordinators. There
were 10 or 9.00% head teachers I, 9 or 8.00% were principal I. The data shows that
most of the respondents were matured enough and practiced their teaching
managing career at a legal age. Likewise, there were 6 or 5.00% holding institutional
position of principal III, 5 or 4.00 were head teachers IV. There were 3 or 3.00%
head teachers and 2 or 2.00% principal IV, principal II and head teachers V.
 Table 1
Respondents’ Profile as to Institutional Position
School Administrators
Institutional Position Frequency Percentage
Principal IV 2 2.00
Principal III 6 5.00
Principal II 2 2.00
Principal I 9 8.00
Head Teacher VI 12 11.00
Head Teacher V 2 2.00
Head Teacher IV 5 4.00
Head Teacher III 45 41.00
Head Teacher II 3 3.00
Head Teacher I 10 9.00
Coordinators 14 13.00
Total 110 100.00
This implies that to be in the highest institutional position, one has to prepare
him or her for the qualitative evaluation of his / her educational qualification,
experience and length of service and the professional development, achievement
and honors he or she received.
Further, the results clearly indicate in the observation of Civil Service
Commission under Resolution No. 070520 dated March 19, 2007 which mandated
the Qualification Standard for Principal in the Elementary and Secondary schools
having a degree in Secondary Education, Bachelor’s degree with 18 professional
education units with at least 1 year HT position, 2 years for MT and 5 years as
teacher experiences.

Table 2 shows the profile of the respondents in terms of years in service

Table 2
Respondents’ Profile as to Length of Service
School Administrators
Length Service Frequency Percentage
6 – 10 years 54 49.10
11 – 15 years 32 29.09
16 – 20 years 14 12.73
20 and above 10 9.09
Total 110 100.00

The profile of the school administrators of public secondary schools in terms

of length of service is presented in the above table. Among the one hundred ten
(110) school administrators, 54 or 49.10% had the length of service between 6 – 10
years, 32 or 29.09 had the length of service between 11 – 15 years. Moreover,
based on the table, 14 or 12.73 % of school administrators had the length of service
ranging from 16 – 20 years, and 10 or 9.09% of the same respondents had the
length of service ranging from 20 years and above.
This is an indication that professionally mature individual has the broader
perspective that would help him or her to perform better. Performance is expected to
improve with experience and practice. Thus, the data further strengthen that the
groups of respondents were professionals and matured enough in handling task
assigned to them and were all qualified in administering and managing schools.
Further, the results clearly indicated in the observation of Civil Service
Commission under Resolution No. 070520 dated March 19, 2007 which mandates
the Qualification Standard for Principal in the Elementary and Secondary schools
having a degree in Secondary Education, Bachelor’s degree with 18 professional
education units with at least one year HT position, two years for MT and 5 years as
teacher experiences.

Table 3 shows the profile of the respondents in terms of highest educational

attainment.
The table reflects that out of one hundred ten (110) school administrators of
public secondary schools in the schools division office Marikina, 8 or 7.27% were
baccalaureate degree holders. There were 28 or 25.45% who earned their
baccalaureate with units in master’s degree, 45 or 40.90% were master’s degree
holders, and 21 or 19.09% were master degree holders with units in doctorate
degree. Likewise, among the one hundred ten (110) respondents, there were eight
(8) with doctorate degree holders.
Table 3
Respondents’ Profile as to Highest Educational Attainment
School Administrators
Highest Educational Attainment Frequency Percentage
Baccalaureate 8 7.27
Baccalaureate with master’s unit 28 25.45
Master Degree 45 40.90
Master with doctorate units 21 19.09
Doctorate 8 7.27
Total 110 100.00

The data revealed that some of the teachers have obtained units in doctorate
degree that will lead them to complete the highest degree which is in response to the
call for quality management and supervision. Manaois (2001) stressed that there is a
need to attain higher degree of education and relevant training especially in the
worker’s line of specialization in order to raise their level of competence.
.

Contingency Table of the Weighted Means of the Digital Leadership

 The weighted mean and verbal interpretation on digital leadership as
perceived by the school administrators themselves and teachers on digital
leadership are shown in table 4.

As shown in the table, both the teacher respondents and school

administrators “strongly agree” on their perceptions on digital leadership as shown
by the grand weighted means of 3.29 and 3.93.

The results clearly indicate that the teacher and school administrators have
similar insights on the digital leadership of school administrators in all public
secondary schools in Marikina city. They have the same notions and perceptions
that as a school leader, one must be good enough in leading his or her constituents
through digital leadership in terms of the abovementioned variables.

Likewise, there is a necessity to secure a learning model that would address

higher level on the utilization of digital leadership. A learning representation which
would develop and enhance their leadership capabilities in terms of technology
should be undertaken so that a strong force or digitally learning environment will be
materialized.

Table 4
Contingency Table of the Weighted Means of the Digital Leadership

Teachers School
Digital Leadership Administrators
Mean VI Mean VI
1. Foster a Culture of Innovation 3.34 SA 3.96 SA
2. Cultivate Digital Teacher Leadership 3.24 A 3.93 SA
3. Utilize Technology For Improved Communication 3.24 A 3.93 SA
4. Communication Own Learning 3.23 A 3.90 SA
5. Invigorate Team Meetings 3.20 A 3.91 SA
6. Utilized Technology for Improved Efficiency 3.38 SA 3.90 SA
7. Model Expectations for Staff 3.30 SA 3.92 SA
8. Get Connected 3.40 SA 3.92 SA
Grand Weighted Mean 3.29 SA 3.93 SA
Note: 1.00 – 1.75 (SD); 1.76 – 2.50 (D); 2.51 – 3.25 (A); 3.26 – 4.00 (SA)

This was supported by Eric Sheninger on his written literature entitled: Pillars
of Digital Leadership. He pointed out that leaders need to be the catalysts for
change and also provide a framework that would address learning needs for digital
transformation. Each is critical in its own right to transforming and sustaining a
positive school culture. By addressing each of the pillars, leaders can begin
changing and transforming their respective schools into ones that prepare learners
and teachers with essential digital age knowledge and skills, while engaging a
variety of stakeholders. Digital leadership begins with identifying obstacles to
change, and specific solutions to overcome them in order to transform school in the
digital age.

Significant Differences Between the Perceptions of the Two Groups of

Respondents on Digital Leadership

The significant differences of the two groups of respondents on digital

leadership perceived by the school administrators themselves and the teachers were
presented in Table 5.

Table 5
T-test on the Digital Leadership as Perceived
by the Two Groups of Respondents

School Administrators
Digital Leadership t-value P Verbal Interpretation Decision
1. Foster a culture of
-23.611 Significant Reject Ho
innovation 0.000
3. Cultivate Digital Teacher
-28.639 Significant Reject Ho
Leadership 0.000
5. Utilize Technology for
Improved -36.271 0.000 Significant Reject Ho
Communication
7. Communicate Own
-41.914 Significant Reject Ho
Learning 0.000
9. Invigorate Team
-30.840 Significant Reject Ho
Meetings 0.000
11. Utilize Technology
-31.646 Significant Reject Ho
for Improved Efficiency 0.000
13. Model Expectations
-43.481 Significant Reject Ho
for Staff 0.000
0.000
15. Get Connected -64.750 Significant Reject Ho

Table 5 displays the t – value and p - value as regards the significant

differences in the perceptions of the two groups of respondents on the extent level
on digital leadership during the school year 2018 – 2019.
 It can be gleaned from the table that the computed t-values of -23.611, -
28.639, -36.271, -41.914, -30.840, -31.646, -43.481 and -64.750 are greater than
computed p values of 0.000. On the other hand, at 0.05 level of significance, it can
be inferred that there is significant difference between the perceptions of the two
groups of respondents on digital leadership. The statistical decision is to reject the
null hypotheses.
This means that each group of respondent has its own stand towards digital
leadership. Hence, school administrators may look digital leadership as good but the
teachers may not.

Teachers’ Latest Performance Rating

Table 6 presents the level of performance of the teachers as shown on the

Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form for SY 2017-2018.
It can be gleaned in the table that the performance of the teachers with an
average mean of 3.87 has an adjectival rating of very satisfactory.
This findings show that the teachers are performing their job very well,
however, there is a need to encourage the teachers to improve their performance to
outstanding level.

Table 6
Performance Rating of the Teachers on their Individual Performance
Commitment and Review Form for SY 2017-2018

Source Teacher Frequency Percentage Mean Adjectival

Respondents Rating
Performance Very
Rating 304 1176.62 100.00 3.87 Satisfactory

Test on Significant Correlation Between School Administrators’ Digital

Leadership and Teachers’ Performance

The test of significant correlation between the school administrators’ digital

leadership and teachers’ performance are presented in table 7.

It can be noted in the table that there was very high correlation between the
digital leadership of school administrators in terms of foster a culture of innovation
and the level of teachers’ performance as shown by the r - value of 0.925 which led
to the rejection of null hypothesis. Therefore, at 0.05 level of significance, it can be
inferred that there is a significant correlation between the above cited variables.
Likewise, the dependency of digital leadership to teachers’ performance is about
85.6% respectively. It is implied that digital leadership in terms of foster a culture of
innovation has a very high connotation with teachers’ performances.
Thus, the results were supported by the study of Hilmarsson, Oskarsson and
Gudlaugsson (2014) where innovation has mainly been associated with new product
development and creation of new processes. This view has been changing, and now
innovation can be related to any part of the value chain, whether developing new
services, new business models, rethinking cooperation, revenue streams,
distribution channels, or management styles. This new view of innovation applies to
industry as well as service. It is, therefore, of increasing interest to gain a deeper
insight into factors that have an impact on innovation performance.
Moreover, it can be seen in the table that there was a very high correlation
between the variables cultivate digital teacher leadership and teachers’ performance
as shown by the r – value of -0.941 which decided to reject the null hypothesis. At
0.05 critical r value, it can be said that there was a significant correlation between
the abovementioned variables. Thus, the reliance of digital leadership as regards
cultivate digital teacher leadership to teachers’ performance is about 88.50%
respectively.
It implied that school administrators’ digital leadership as to cultivate teacher
leadership really matters to teachers’ performance. The results were reinforced by
the study of Bryan (2017) where teacher leadership responded to the call to provide
teachers, administrators, districts, policymakers, and researcher new insights on
transformational teacher leadership, which was deemed important to assist and
develop teachers to lead or co-lead through this time of great change in education.
Understanding the difference in leadership scores before and after participation in a
teacher leadership professional development academy could assist teachers,
administrators, districts, policymakers, and researchers to develop and set
expectations for transformational teacher leadership professional development.
In the same manner, there was a high correlation between the variable
digital leadership as regards to utilized technology for improved communication and
teacher performance as shown by the computed r – value of -0.724 which led to the
rejection of the null hypothesis. At 0.05 critical value of r, it can be concluded that
there is a significant correlation between the aforementioned variables. The claim
was justified in the above table where the dependency of digital leadership as
regards to utilized technology for improved communication to teacher performance is
about 52.42% respectively. This implies that digital leadership of school
administrators in terms of utilized technology for improved communication has a high
bearing towards teachers’ performances.
The results were linked to the written literature by SAP (2018) where
technology provides advanced reporting and business analysis capability to help
gain a deep understanding of business performance, customer preferences, and
market trends. And, executives and business managers can access performance
metrics and analytical reports and use this information to work together to set or
redesign strategy.

Table 7
Test on Significant Correlation Between School Administrators’
Digital Leadership and Teachers’ Performance

Digital Leadership and Teachers’ Performance

Sources r – value r2 Strength of Decision VI
Relationship

Foster a culture of innovation Very High

0.925 0.856 Reject Ho Significant
Correlation
Teachers’ Performance
Cultivate Digital Teacher
Very High
Leadership -0.941 0.885 Reject Ho Significant
Correlation
Teachers’ Performance
Utilize Technology for
Improved Communication High
-0.724 0.524 Reject Ho Significant
Correlation
Teachers’ Performance

Communicate Own Learning Weak Not

0.288 0.083 Retain Ho
Correlation Significant
Teachers’ Performance
Invigorate Team Meetings Very low Not
-0.164 0.027 Retain Ho
Teachers’ Performance correlation Significant
Utilize Technology for Not
Improved Efficiency Very low Significant
0.201 0.040 Retain Ho
correlation
Teachers’ Performance

Model Expectations for Staff Moderate Fail to

-0.629 0.396 Significant
Correlation Reject Ho
Teachers’ Performance
Get Connected Moderate Fail to
0.683 0.466 Significant
Teachers’ Performance Correlation Reject Ho

Critical value of r: 0.05

Further, it can be noted in the table that there was a weak correlation
between the digital leadership of school administrators in terms of communicate own
learning and teachers’ performance as shown by the r – value of 0.288 with the
critical r value of 0.05. The results strengthened the claimed that there is no
significant correlation as regards communicate own learning and teacher
performance which led to retain the null hypothesis. Thus, the dependency of digital
leadership as to communicate own learning and teachers’ performance is about
0.70% respectively. It implied that the school administrators’ digital leadership as to
communicate own learning has its own stand towards teachers’ performance where
learning and communication can be gained in other means.
This was reinforced in the article written by the open edu (2019) which
stressed that improving learning and performance could be considered to be a meta-
skill - that is the skill of learning how to learn. It is then a little different from the other
skills because improving one’s own learning and performance is not a separate
option that one can choose to concentrate on or not – it is the basis of the three-
stage framework of developing a strategy, monitoring progress and evaluating
performance which one will use to develop and improve other key skills and one’s
learning more generally. The key skill of improving own learning and performance
can be practiced and developed like other skills, but unlike other skills it seems more
difficult to measure and assess.
On the aspect of correlating digital leadership as to invigorate team meetings
and teachers’ performance, it was found out that there was very low correlation as
shown by the r – value of -0.164 with 0.05 as critical value of r. The null hypothesis
that there is no significant correlation between the aforementioned variables were
statistically decided as retain, thus, there is no significant correlation. The
dependency of digital leadership in terms of invigorate meeting to teachers’
performance is about 2.70% which strengthened the above claimed.
It implied that the school administrators’ digital leadership as regards
invigorate team meeting has less impact on teachers’ performance where
excitement and energetic meeting can be done on the basis of how they work on it.
The results were supported by Hirsch (2019). He pointed out that when
leaders communicate high expectations, they articulate a clear vision of what
success looks like and how others can go about achieving it. Designing "challenge
points" for employees -- goals that sit just past their current performance level but
remain within reach -- is crucial to instilling confidence and growth. The most
effective challenge points are designed together with employees. Craft a vision
plan of near-term and long-range goals that employees will work towards with your
ongoing supervision and support. Not only do these challenge points frame a
meaningful process of goal-setting, but they also create a partnership model that
allows one to assess progress and performance without the specter of subjectivity
and fear. Employees will feel both challenged and supported.
Likewise, there was a very low correlation on the aspect of digital leadership
in terms of utilized technology for improved efficiency and teachers’ performance as
shown by the computed r – value of 0.201 with 0.05 as critical value of r which led to
retain the null hypothesis, thus there is no significant correlation between the
aforecited variables. The claim was justified on the basis of the dependency of digital
leadership as regards utilized technology for improved efficiency to teachers’
performance which is about 4.04% respectively.
 It implied that digital leadership of school administrators in terms of utilized
technology for improved efficiency didn’t matter on teachers’ performance.
The further results were supported by the study of Young (2008) which
indicated that teachers' technology use, students' technology use, and overall
technology use depended on how well the teacher used the technology in the
classroom. For the most part, the use of technology was motivating for the students,
but it had no significant positive effect on their grades and/or attendance, including
"at risk" students. In addition, the study found that the continued use of technology
was low among the teachers in the sample. These results suggest that for
technology to be effective and make changes in students' grades, motivation,
attitude, and attendance, schools must be prepared for technology use in the
classroom. Leaders must develop a model of implementation that includes a shared
vision among teachers and leaders and includes entire school community
involvement. They must also offer consistent and specific training for staff, time
during the school day for the training, a full-time technology director, and time for the
staff to communicate and share with peers for technology to be an effective tool in
the classroom curriculum.
On the other hand, there was a moderate correlation between the school
administrators’ digital leadership in terms of model expectations for staff and
teachers’ performance as shown by the computed r – value of -0.629 with 0.05 as
critical value of r which failed to reject the null hypothesis, hence there is significant
correlation between the above mentioned variables. The claim was justified on the
basis of dependency of digital leadership as regards model expectations for staff to
teachers’ performance which is about 39.56% respectively. It implied that the school
administrators’ digital leadership in terms of model expectation for staff may vary
depending on the factors which may impact them and is expected for a change in
teachers’ performance.
This was supported by the study of Forero and Gomez (2017) where the
expectations disconfirmation model allows to establish significant correlations
between service attributes and general satisfaction, yet it warrants an adjustment of
data distribution to identify the attributes where confirmation and disconfirmation are
presented – when not due to chance. On the other hand, the direct effect approach
allows to identify predictor attributes of satisfaction better than the other models do,
whereas the importance – performance model is easier to implement but can
generate erroneous conclusions about the service attributes that generate
satisfaction.
Lastly, there was a moderate correlation between the variables digital
leadership as regards get connected and teachers’ performance as shown by the
computed r value of 0.683 with 0.05 as the critical value of r which failed to reject the
hypothesis, hence there is a significant correlation between the digital leadership of
school administrators in terms of get connected and teachers’ performance. The
claimed was justified on the basis of the dependency of the digital leadership to
teachers’ performance which is about 46.65% respectively.
It implied that school administrators’ digital leadership on the aspect of get
connected may vary depending on how and what they used platforms connections
which were also expected to change teachers’ performance.
The abovementioned results were reinforced by Remdisch (2019) where the
digitally transformed workplace is networked, because digital technology is
connectivity technology. Networks create new possibilities for leadership, and
leadership roles can be distributed widely in an organization, increasing flexibility
and responsiveness, and enhancing individual initiative and democracy. An
increasing globalization of the work force requires managers to communicate and
lead remotely. This presents new challenges in building trust, motivating employees,
and ensuring performance from afar.

Latest Principals’ Performance Rating

Table 3.16 presents the level of performance of the school as shown on the
Office Performance Commitment and Review Form for SY 2017-2018.
It can be gleaned in table 3.16 that the performance of the school with an
average mean of 3.86 has an adjectival rating of very satisfactory.

Table 3.16
Principal Performance Rating During the SY 2017-2018

Source Principal Frequency Percentage Mean Adjectival

Respondents Rating
Performance 15 57.95 100.00 3.86 Very
Rating Satisfactory

This finding shows that the schools are performing well, however there is a
need for the school administration to improve their performance to outstanding level.

Test on Significant Correlation Between the Digital Leadership of School

Administrators and the Principal Performances

The test on significant correlation between the digital leadership of school

administrators and principals’ performance were presented in Table 3.17
It can be noted in the table, there was a very low correlation between the
digital leadership of school administrators in terms of foster a culture of innovation
and principal performance as shown by the computed r – value of 0.079 at 0.05
critical value of r which led to retain the null hypothesis.
Hence, it can be concluded that there is no significant correlation on the
above-mentioned variables. The claim was justified on the basis of digital leadership
as regards foster a culture of innovations dependency to principal performance
which is about 0.62% respectively.
It implied that digital leadership of school administrators in terms of foster a
culture of innovation has no bearing on the principal performance. The change in
digital leadership of school administration is expected to change the principal’s
performance.
The above results were supported by Kramer (2017). She stated that to truly
create a culture of innovation, one must be willing to encourage action on innovative
ideas, not just continuous conceptual chatter. This isn’t to say that every idea is a
great one or every new product proposal should directly go to prototyping. There
must be time to gather data and to make an informed decision—but not too much
time. Whether one invests more of his / her resources or take a different path. She /
he must be agile enough to make those choices in a way that’s confident, measured,
and with no more downtime than is absolutely necessary.

Further, the variables digital leadership of school administrators as regards

cultivate digital teacher leadership and principals’ performance was found to be a
weak correlation as shown by the computed r – value of -0.350 at 0.05 critical
value of r which was decided to retain the null hypothesis, hence there is no
significant correlation between the aforesaid variables. The claim was justified on the
basis of the dependency of digital leadership to principal performances which is
about 12.25% respectively.

It further implied that digital leadership as to cultivate digital teacher

leadership does not matter on the performances of the principal. According to
Murray (2013), the best schools are run by administrators that allow teachers to take
on leadership roles; not ones that micromanage their every move. It’s not feasible for
a building administrator to be the expert on every digital tool, system, program, etc.
Digital leaders cultivate teacher leadership, abdicate some control, and understand
that allowing teachers to lead, mentor and inspire their colleagues will promote
positive digital outcomes.

Furthermore, the computed r – value of -0.424 was noted as moderate

correlation between the school administrators’ digital leadership in terms of utilized
technology for improved communication and principal performances with 0.05 as
critical value of r which failed to reject the null hypothesis, hence there is a
significant correlation between the aforementioned variables. The claim was
strengthened on the basis of dependency of digital leadership in terms of utilized
technology for improved communication which is about 17.98% respective. It implied
that the change of digital leadership is expected to change in the performance of
principals.

Table 3.17
Test on Significant Correlation Between School Administrators’
Digital Leadership and Principals Performance

Digital Leadership and Teachers’ Performance

Sources r– r2 Strength of Decision VI
value Relationship
Foster a culture of
innovation Very low Not
0.079 0.006 Retain Ho
correlation Significant
Principals’ Performance
Cultivate Digital Teacher
Weak Not
Leadership -0.350 0.123 Retain Ho
Correlation Significant
Principals’ Performance
Utilize Technology for
Improved Communication Moderate Fail to
-0.424 0.180 Significant
Correlation Reject Ho
Principals’ Performance
Communicate Own
High
Learning 0.732 0.536 Reject Ho Significant
Correlation
Principals’ Performance

Invigorate Team Meetings Very low Not

-0.032 0.001 Retain Ho
correlation Significant
Principals’ Performance
Utilize Technology for Not
Improved Efficiency Weak Significant
0.299 0.089 Retain Ho
correlation
Principals’ Performance
Model Expectations for Not
Very Low
Staff 0.193 0.037 Retain Ho Significant
Correlation
Principals’ Performance
Get Connected Moderate Fail to
0.533 0.284 Significant
Principals’ Performance Correlation Reject Ho

Critical value of r: 0.05

The further results were strengthened by the study of Grady (2011) who
stressed that to be a principal in the 21st century school demands leadership of
technology. To be a leader of technology requires a willingness to learn, flexibility,
and the capacity to accept change as a constant factor. Adaptability and acceptance
of ambiguity are essential. Because technology changes continuously, there is no
menu of technology of must dos and must haves. Instead, leaders of technology
must be lifelong learners and explorers of the new, the exciting, and the useful in
technology.
On the other hand, there was a high correlation between the school
administrators’ digital leadership as regard communicate own learning and principal
performances as shown by the computed r – value of 0.732 at 0.05 critical value for r
which led to reject the null hypothesis, hence there is a significant correlation
between digital leadership in terms of communicate own learning and principal
performance. The claim was justified on the basis of its dependency of digital
leadership to principal performance which is about 53.58% respectively. It implied
that for communication to develop own learning could be done in other means which
would not affect principal performance.
Grady (2011) supported the above results. She stated that communicating the
uses and importance of technology in enhancing student learning experiences to the
school’s stakeholders is very vital. Principals who are comfortable with technology
become models of technology use in schools. Principals demonstrate their ease with
technology by using e-mail, Web sites, preparing reports illustrated with graphs and
photos embedded in presentations, using the student information system to track the
day-to-day operation of the school, and using handheld devices to complete teacher
appraisals.
Moreover, on the aspect of correlation between school administrators’ digital
leadership as regards invigorate team meetings and principal performance, it was
found out that there was a very low correlation as shown by the computed r –
value of -0.032 at 0.05 critical value for r which decided to retain the null hypothesis,
hence it can be inferred that there was no significant correlation between digital
leadership as regards invigorate team meetings and principal performance. The
claim was justified on the basis of dependency of digital leadership to principal
performance which is about 0.10% respectively. It implied that invigorate team
meetings do not matter on principal performance.
The results accorded to the study of Murray (2013). He stressed that team
meetings can be the best of times or the worst of times. Pulling together large
groups of staff members can leave staff inspired and motivated, or befuddled and
disheveled. Technology can help transform meetings into those that are interactive,
efficient and meaningful. Back channels can provide an avenue of engagement and
real-time interaction. Survey tools, such as Poll Everywhere, can capture staff
feedback and thoughts in real time. Digital content can supplement initiatives. Global
connections can share expertise by virtually joining meetings and training sessions
from anywhere in the world. 
Likewise, there was a weak correlation between the digital leadership of
school administrators as to utilized technology for improved communication and
principal performance as shown by the computed r – value of 0.299 at 0.05 critical
value of r which indicated to retain the null hypothesis, hence there is no significant
correlation between the aforesaid variables. On the basis of the dependency of
digital leadership as regards utilized technology for improved communication to
principal performance, it was computed to be about 8.94%. It implied that the
change of digital leadership in terms of utilized technology for improved
communication may also be expected on the change of principal performance.
Remdisch (2019) concluded that digital leaders should support
communication and dialogue, emphasizing factors such goal setting and feedback.
They can offer knowledge management, and they can support employees in
learning, taking initiative and innovation. Digital leaders can help employees not be
alienated by technology, overwhelmed by knowledge, or burnt – out by the need to
innovate.
On the aspect of correlating digital leadership of school administrators in
terms of model expectations for staff and principal performances, it was found out
that there was a very low correlation as shown by the computed r – value of 0.193
at 0.05 critical value of r which led to retain the null hypothesis, hence it can be said
that there is no significant correlation between aforementioned digital leadership and
principal performance. On the basis of the dependency of digital leadership to
principal performance, it was computed to be about 3.72% to justify the claim.
It implied that the school administrators’ digital leadership as regard model
expectations for staff has no bearing to principal performance. The change of
leadership style may also be expected to vary the principal performances. Murray
(2013) stressed that Leaders that model their expectations, lead by example and
with integrity, help foster environments of innovation and trust. The best digital
leaders understand that it’s not about the technology. It’s about the learning and
opportunities that occur through meaningful technology infusion.
Finally, there was a moderate correlation between the digital leadership of
school administrators in terms of get connected as shown by the computed r – value
of 0.533 at 0.05 critical value of r which failed to reject the null hypothesis, hence it
can be inferred that there is a significant correlation between the above-mentioned
variables. The claim was justified on the basis of digital leadership as regard get
connected to principal performance which is about 28.40% respectively. It implied
that getting connected is an essential aspect in school, hence communication is vital
in order to improve the performances. Developing network internally and externally
is important in order to be in one as far as the school’s programs are concerned.
This was supported by Remdisch (2019) where Networks create connections
between people and enable access to knowledge. In a knowledge-dense
environment, where information access and sharing are easy, networks distribute
expertise efficiently. Networks boost collaboration and flexibility. They augment the
responsiveness and innovation potential of a company by facilitating cooperation,
shared decision making and interaction between anyone in its network.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are offered based on the findings and

conclusions of the study.
1. The school administrators should continue their educational career
development leading to the highest degree.
2. School administrators should maintain their eagerness to learn and
developed their techno-leadership style and management.
3. To achieve the highest performance rating of teachers, it is highly
recommended to maintain the mastered teaching skills and attend learning and
seminars that would strengthen their least mastered teaching skills.
4. The school should embrace the digital environment in order to increase the
school performances.
5. School administrators should practice and prioritize techno-leadership
program that would enhance the school’s electro-information dissemination.
6. Both the school administrators and teachers should work together in carrying
out tasks related to digitalization and technology based school transactions.
7. Digital leadership of school administrators should be integrated to school set
ups in order to increase the school performances.
8. The techno-learning and development model should be tried and utilized by
the school administrators in order to increase teachers and school performance
through technology utilization.

References

Bryan, R. (2017). Teacher leader behaviors: A quantitative study of a teacher

leadership development academy and teacher leaders’ five practices of
exemplary leadership behaviours. La Fetra College of Education Organizational
Leadership Department

Civil Service Commission under Resolution No. 070520 dated March 19, 2007

Forero, D. and Gomez, A. (2017). Comparison of measurement models based on

expectations and perceived performance for the satisfaction study in health
services. Science Direct. Retrieved from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S012143811730019X
Grady, M. (2011). The principal’s role as technology leader. Southeast Education
Network. Retrieved from:
https://www.seenmagazine.us/Articles/Article-Detail/articleid/1800/the-principal-
8217-s-role-as-technology-leader

Hilmarsson, E., Oskarsson, G. and Gudlaugsson, T. (2014). The relationship

between innovation culture and innovation performance. ResearchGate.
Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284872472_The_relationship_between
_innovation_culture_and_innovation_performance

Hirsch, J. (2019). 4 simple ways leaders can energize their teams in 2019. Retrieved
from: https://www.inc.com/joe-hirsch/4-simple-ways-leaders-can-energize-their-
teams-in-2019.html

Kramer, S. (2017). Six ways leaders can build a culture of innovation. Talent Culture.
Retrieved from: https://talentculture.com/six-ways-leaders-can-build-a-culture-
of-innovation/
Lynch, M. (2018). 9 Tips for being a education leader in the digital age, The Tech
Edvocate, Online blog, Retrieved from: https://www.thetechedvocate.org/9-tips-
education-leader-digital-age/

McNeill, C. (2018).What is descriptive research? Gutcheck Online Blog, Retrieved

from: https://www.gutcheckit.com/blog/what-is-descriptive-research/

Murray, T. (2013). Digital leaders for school leaders, Online blog, retrieved from:
https://www.thomascmurray.com/digital-leadership-for-school-leaders/

Open edu (2019). Key skill assessment: improving your own learning and
performance. Retrieved from:
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/mod/oucontent/view.php?
printable=1&id=4438

Remdisch, S. (2019). Digital leadership. LeadershipGarage. Stanford University.

Retrieved from: https://leadershipgarage.com/digital-leadership.html

SAP (2018). Using technology to increase business productivity. Retrieved from:

https://www.successfactors.com/resources/knowledge-hub/educational-articles/
using-technology-to-increase-your-business-productivity.html

Sheninger, E. (2014). Pillars of digital leadership, International Center for Leadership

in Education.
Young, R. (2008). Using technology tools in the public school classroom. The Graduate
School University of Wisconsin-Stout Menomonie, WI. Retrieved from:
http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2008/2008youngr.pdf