Demetrios Sampson · Dirk Ifenthaler
J. Michael Spector · Pedro Isaías Editors
Digital Technologies:
Sustainable
Innovations for
Improving Teaching
and Learning
Digital Technologies: Sustainable Innovations
for Improving Teaching and Learning
Demetrios Sampson · Dirk Ifenthaler
J. Michael Spector · Pedro Isaías
Editors
Digital Technologies:
Sustainable Innovations
for Improving Teaching
and Learning
Editors Dirk Ifenthaler
Demetrios Sampson Learning, Design and Technology
Department of Digital Systems University of Mannheim
University of Piraeus Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Piraeus, Greece
School of Education Curtin Teaching and Learning
Curtin University Curtin University
Bentley, WA, Australia Bentley, WA, Australia
J. Michael Spector
Department of Learning Technologies Pedro Isaías
University of North Texas Institute for Teaching & Learning
Denton, TX, USA Innovation (ITaLI)
The University of Queensland
St. Lucia, QLD, Australia
ISBN 978-3-319-73416-3 ISBN 978-3-319-73417-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73417-0
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018933590
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents
Part I Transforming the Learning Environment
1 School Leadership: An Analysis of Competence Frameworks ������������ 3
Stylianos Sergis, Thomina Voziki, and Demetrios Sampson
2 Putting Flipped Classroom into Practice: A Comprehensive
Review of Empirical Research ���������������������������������������������������������������� 27
Michail N. Giannakos, John Krogstie, and Demetrios Sampson
3 Mobile Device Usage in Higher Education �������������������������������������������� 45
Jan Delcker, Andrea Honal, and Dirk Ifenthaler
4 Digital Learning Technologies in Chemistry
Education: A Review �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 57
Ioanna Bellou, Nikiforos M. Papachristos,
and Tassos A. Mikropoulos
Part II Enriching Student Learning Experiences
5 The Work of Children: Seeking Patterns
in the Design of Educational Technology ���������������������������������������������� 83
Michael Eisenberg and Zack Jacobson-Weaver
6 How Do High School Students Prefer To Learn? ���������������������������������� 95
Leila A. Mills, Laura Baker, Jenny S. Wakefield,
and Putthachat Angnakoon
7 Students’ Self-Regulated Learning Through
Online Academic Writing in a Course Blog ������������������������������������������ 111
Athanassios Jimoyiannis, Eleni I. Schiza, and Panagiotis Tsiotakis
8 Digital Tool Use and Self-Regulated Strategies
in a Bilingual Online Learning Environment ���������������������������������������� 131
Ulla Freihofner, Chris Campbell, and Simone Smala
v
vi Contents
Part III Measuring and Assessing Teaching and Learning
with Educational Data Analytics
9 Evaluation of Leaning Unit Design Using Page
Flip Information Analysis ������������������������������������������������������������������������ 149
Izumi Horikoshi, Masato Noguchi, and Yasuhisa Tamura
10 Exploring Adaptive Game-Based Learning
Using Brain Measures ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 161
Jelke van der Pal, Christopher Roos, and Ghanshaam Sewnath
11 Academic Retention in the Italian Context ������������������������������������������ 173
Maria Lidia Mascia, Mirian Agus, Gianrico Dettori,
Maria Assunta Zanetti, Eliano Pessa, and Maria Pietronilla Penna
Part IV Cultivating Student Competences
for the Digital Smart Society
1 2 Measurement of Computational Thinking
in K-12 Education: The Need for Innovative Practices ������������������������ 193
Takam Djambong, Viktor Freiman, Simon Gauvin,
Martine Paquet, and Mario Chiasson
13 Computational Thinking in the Context
of Science and Engineering Practices:
A Self-Regulated Learning Approach ���������������������������������������������������� 223
Erin E. Peters-Burton, Timothy J. Cleary, and Anastasia Kitsantas
1 4 A Technology-Enhanced Pedagogical Framework
to Promote Collaborative Creativity in Secondary Education ������������ 241
Manoli Pifarré and Laura Martí
15 NanoCity: An Immersive Game to Transform
Student Perceptions of Science �������������������������������������������������������������� 259
Karen J. Murcia, C. Paul Newhouse, and Julie Boston
16 Digital Smart Citizenship Competence Development
with a Cyber-Physical Learning Approach Supported
by Internet of Things Technologies �������������������������������������������������������� 277
Yacine Atif, Stylianos Sergis, and Demetrios Sampson
Index ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 301
About the Authors
Mirian Agus is a psychologist and Ph.D. at the University of Barcelona. Since
2001, she has been working as statistical technician at the University of Cagliari.
Her research interests include the study of research methodology, the construction
of assessment instruments, and the conduction of statistical data analyses applied to
behavioral sciences.
Putthachat Angnakoon is a lecturer at the faculty of learning sciences and
education at Thammasat University in Thailand. She earned her PhD in applied
technology and performance improvement from the University of North Texas. She
worked as a research consultant for the University of North Texas Information
Research and Analysis Lab (IRA). Her research interests are in learning analytics,
research productivity, and educational technology.
Yacine Atif is a Professor at Skovde University in Sweden since January 2016.
He received a PhD degree in Computer Science from Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology (HKUST) in 1996. After graduation, he worked at
Purdue University in USA as a Post-Doc and then joined a faculty position at
Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore. Since 1999, he was
affiliated with UAE University as a faculty and then Program Chair of Enterprise
Systems at the College of Information Technology. Over the last decade, he led
several initiatives that are designed to create a rich learning environment to help
promote the transformation of education through the innovative use of Web
technologies. He introduced the concept of “learning patterns,” bringing
together ideas of educational design and architectural abstractions used in
software engineering. Lately, his focus shifted towards the evolution of smart
cities induced by the emergence of Internet of Things technologies. This
e volution calls for new “cyber-physical learning” models in urban informatics
environments, which instill new competences for the development of future
digital smart citizens.
vii
viii About the Authors
Laura Baker is a professor of computer science and chair of the Department of
Computer Sciences. Dr. Baker is a past president of the Consortium for Computing
Sciences in Colleges and has served as a regional editor of the Journal of Computing
Sciences in Colleges for the past 12 years. Dr. Baker has taught computer science at
St. Edward’s for the past 28 years, and she was awarded the University’s Teaching
Excellence Award in 2002 and the Distinguished Career Teaching Award in 2016.
Dr. Baker oversees student research projects. Dr. Baker is currently researching
computer science pedagogy involving project code testing and student learning.
Ioanna Bellou holds a B.Sc. in Physics and an M.Sc. in New Technologies in
Chemical Education from the University of Ioannina, as well as a Ph.D. in e ducational
technology from the University of Thessaly. Ioanna Bellou is a school advisor on the
discipline of Computer Science in the Region of Epirus, Greece. Her research inter-
ests focus on educational technology and computer science education. Ioanna Bellou
has many publications in international and national peer-reviewed academic journals
and conferences. Her work has been cited in more than 100 publications. She is a
member of the editorial board and a reviewer for journals and conferences and has
participated in numerous development and educational projects. Ioanna Bellou is a
founding member of the Hellenic Association of ICT in Education (HAICTE).
Julie Boston is an academic at Edith Cowan University with a portfolio responsi-
ble for Industry Engagement for the School of Education. Previously Julie was a
lecturer and coordinator of Secondary Science Education. She is a highly experi-
enced and award winning secondary science educator. Her current research interests
surround the provision of twenty-first century skills and learning environments and,
in particular, the pedagogical transformations required to support these outcomes in
schools. Julie is also interested in virtual measures that support both pre-service
teachers and in service teachers’ preparedness and efficacy for STEM education.
Julie is an active member of the Transformational Games Research Centre at Edith
Cowan University, having conducted several school immersive technology-based
research projects including NanoCity, TrailBlazer and Abydos.
Chris Campbell works at the Centre for Learning Futures at Griffith University
where she teaches in the Graduate Certificate in Higher Education. In her specific
field of Digital Technologies, Chris is an emerging research leader who has been
involved in numerous grants and projects around digital technologies and mobile
learning. Her skills in implementing and trialing new technologies are documented
in over 50 publications where she has conducted research in online tools in educa-
tional settings, including LAMS, Second Life, and Assistive eXtra Learning
Environments as well as research in technology integration, mobile learning, and
augmented reality. In 2016, Chris was a Queensland-Smithsonian Fellowship
holder; she investigated the Smithsonian Learning Lab and implications for teach-
ers. Chris has a keen interest in MLearning and has published various papers per-
taining to TPACK and mathematics education (https://experts.griffith.edu.au/
academic/chris.campbell).
About the Authors ix
Mario Chiasson is a leader in the application and use of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) in education. His role and responsibility at
Anglophone East School District in Moncton, New-Brunswick, Canada, include
providing an administrative and pedagogical vision for technological advancements
in learning. Over the years, Mario has assisted schools, districts, and ministries to
understand the impact of ICT in the education system to engage students in their
learning performances. In 2004, Mario completed a Master’s degree in ICT in
schools administration and conducted two major research projects on mobile learn-
ing: “My e-Backpack” (175 students used an iPod touch as an instructional tool to
support their learning in literacy and numeracy) and “Bring Your Own Devices”
(BYOD) at school. Mario is also a Microsoft innovative educator, a Cisco IT essen-
tial teacher, an Apple teacher, and an Apple distinguished educator (ADE). He has
been a part of many provincial projects including a 1-to-1 laptop project, provincial
and district collaborative platform (Portals), as well as international collaborative
projects (http://mariochiasson.com).
Timothy J. Cleary is an Associate Professor in the School Psychology program in
the Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology (GSAPP) at Rutgers
University. His expertise involves the development and application of self-regulated
learning (SRL) and motivation assessment and intervention practices within
academic, clinical, and sports contexts. He has published over 40 peer-reviewed
journal articles and book chapters addressing SRL issues, has edited two books on
SRL, and is currently drafting a book to help K-12 teachers infuse SRL principles
in the classroom. Dr. Cleary teaches doctoral classes in learning disabilities and
academic assessments and interventions. Dr. Cleary routinely provides professional
development training to school districts, colleges and universities, and other agen-
cies regarding best practices in SRL.
Jan Delcker is a research assistant at the Chair for Learning, Design and
Technology at University of Mannheim, Germany. His research interest focuses on
educators’ professionalization in digital media, educational technology, and game-
based learning.
Gianrico Dettori is a psychologist, one of her research topic concerns the investi-
gation of the dropout factors.
Takam Djambong B.Sc. Biochemistry (University of Yaounde I-Cameroon),
M.Ed. Chemistry (High Teacher’s Training College of Yaounde—Cameroon and
M.A. Educational Technology (Université de Strasbourg—France), is currently a
Ph.D. candidate and research assistant in the Faculty of Education at the Université
de Moncton (New-Brunswick, Canada) with an expertise in educational technology
and e-learning.
Between 2008 and 2015, he assumed leadership in the training and awareness of
secondary school teachers on the pedagogical, didactic, and epistemological issues
of ICT integration in Cameroon high schools. He successively served as Head of
x About the Authors
ICT Center at the Nkolbisson Technical High School (Yaoundé) and then as
Regional Pedagogic Inspector of Computer Science in the Cameroon Ministry of
Secondary Education (MINESEC).
Between 2014 and 2016, he also contributed as a multimedia pedagogical
designer to the production of six training modules of the MOOCS CerticeScol and
CerticeSup of the AUF (Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie) based on
UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers.
His main research interests concern the epistemological, didactic, and psycho-
cognitive dimensions of the development of computational thinking and twenty-first
century skills in K-12 education, within the context of Science, Technology,
Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) learning through the use of various
technology-rich learning environments (TRLE).
Ulla Freihofner is a CLIL science teacher at Ferny Grove State High School,
Queensland, and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Queensland. She is particularly
interested in teaching with technology and student’s self-regulated learning strategies
in a foreign language-learning environment. Ulla has been teaching Science and HPE
in middle school years in a German immersion program for the last 10 years. Her
qualitative research examines the student’s interactions, experiences, and outcomes in
this unique classroom environment. Ulla’s research is based on theories of dialogism
and heterology, self-regulation, content and language-integrated learning, pedagogies
involving technology-enhanced learning environments, and scientific open inquiry.
Viktor Freiman Ph.D. in teaching computer science, is full professor at the
Université de Moncton, Canada. His main research interests, besides development
of computational thinking, focus on mathematical giftedness, problem solving, cre-
ativity, virtual learning communities, as well as digital literacy. He is director of the
CompéTICA Partnership Network funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada (2014–2017) whose main goal is to investigate digital
competence development in the lifelong perspective. He is also coeditor of the book
Series Mathematics Education in the Digital Era (since 2014).
Simon Gauvin is an expert in the field of visual programming, human–computer
interaction, and mobile and cloud computing with 25 years of experience develop-
ing several startup software companies. He was former vice president of Applications
Technology at Plazmic Inc. (acquired by RIM in 2002), where he led the develop-
ment of a mobile media creation platform for Warner Brothers and Disney in the
Japanese mobile market. He completed Ph.D. research in computer science at
Dalhousie University and has been published in several leading academic journals
worldwide. Simon has also authored software patents and invented new visual pro-
gramming languages, the last of which was the basis of a mobile app development
platform for education, Vizwik.com, which he cofounded in 2009. Today, he is a
freelance chief technology officer consulting for small- to medium-sized companies
and continues to forward research in visual programming language design and edu-
cation technology.
About the Authors xi
Michail Giannakos is an Associate Professor of Interaction Design and Learning
Technologies, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.
Giannakos has developed and experimented with learning environments since 2008,
and since that time has authored more than hundred manuscripts published in peer-
reviewed journals and conferences. He is a member on the executive board of IEEE
Technical Committee on Learning Technology. He has worked at several research
projects funded by diverse sources like European Commission (EC), Microsoft
Research, The Research Council of Norway (RCN), National Science Foundation
(NSF), German agency for international academic cooperation (DAAD), and Cheng
Endowment; Giannakos is also a recipient of a Marie Curie/ERCIM Fellowship as
well as a RCN Young Talented Researcher Grant (i.e., CAREER award) (https://
www.ntnu.edu/employees/michailg).
Andrea Honal is a professor for marketing, management, und media at the faculty
of business of the DHBW Mannheim (Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State
University Mannheim).
Current research fields of Prof. Dr. Andrea Honal are innovative methods and
digital approaches in higher education (e.g., mobile learning, learning analytics,
virtual learning, and blended learning concepts), higher education marketing, and
sustainability management. Moreover, she is director of Steinbeis Institute of
Marketing, Management and Media and involved in different consulting projects
(www.dhbw-mannheim.de).
Izumi Horikoshi is a Master’s student in Information and Communication Science,
Graduate School of Science and Technology, Sophia University, Japan. She received
a B.S. degree at Sophia University in 2016. Her research interests include learning
technology, learning analytics, evaluation of active learning, and so on. She received
a Best Paper Award at 13th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory
Learning in Digital Age (CELDA) 2017.
Dirk Ifenthaler is chair and professor for Learning, Design and Technology at
University of Mannheim, Germany and adjunct professor at Deakin University,
Australia. His previous roles include professor and director, Centre for Research in
Digital Learning at Deakin University, Australia; manager of Applied Research and
Learning Analytics at Open Universities, Australia; and professor for Applied
Teaching and Learning Research at the University of Potsdam, Germany. He was a
2012 Fulbright Scholar-in-Residence at the Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education
at the University of Oklahoma, USA. Dirk Ifenthaler’s research focuses on the inter-
section of cognitive psychology, educational technology, learning science, data ana-
lytics, and computer science. His research outcomes include numerous co-authored
books, book series, book chapters, journal articles, and international conference
papers, as well as successful grant funding in Australia, Germany, and the USA—
see Dirk’s website for a full list of scholarly outcomes at www.ifenthaler.info. He is
editor-in-chief of the Springer journal Technology, Knowledge and Learning
(www.springer.com/10758) (www.ifenthaler.info).
xii About the Authors
Athanassios Jimoyiannis is a Professor of Science and ICT in Education, leading
the e-Learning Research Group (e-LeReG) at the Department of Social and
Educational Policy, University of Peloponnese, in Greece. Since 1996, Prof.
Jimoyiannis has been involved in various national and EU research and develop-
ment projects with regard to the integration of learning technologies in formal edu-
cation (primary, secondary, and higher education) and teacher development on ICT
in education. His current research interests include e-learning and ICT in education,
social media, and Web 2.0 in education, digital literacy, teachers’ professional
development, and computer science education. His publication record includes over
200 articles in peer-reviewed international journals, peer-reviewed Greek journals,
international and Greek books (chapters), as well as international and national con-
ferences proceedings (http://korinthos.uop.gr/~ajimoyia).
Anastasia Kitsantas is Professor of Educational Psychology in the College of
Education and Human Development at George Mason University. Her research
interests focus on the role of self-regulation on learning and performance across
diverse areas of functioning, including academics, athletics, and health.
John Krogstie holds a Ph.D. (1995) and an M.Sc. (1991) in information systems
from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), where he is
currently a full professor in information systems and chair of the Computer Science
department. John Krogstie is the Norwegian representative and vice-chair for IFIP
TC8 and was chair of IFIP WG 8.1 on information system design and evaluations
(2010–2015). His research interests are information systems modeling, quality of
models and modeling languages, eGovernment, and mobile information systems.
He has published around 250 refereed papers in journals, books, and archival pro-
ceedings since 1991. H-index as of January 2017 is 36, G-index 57 (https://www.
ntnu.edu/employees/krogstie).
Laura Martí is an Assistant Lecturer in Educational Psychology at the Universitat
de Lleida (Spain) and a member of the research group Context and Cognition with
ICT (COnTIC), with whom she has participated in the European project Learning
to learn together: A Visual Language for social orchestration of educational activi-
ties as well as the Spanish government-funded projects CreativeMind2.0 and
CreaCOnTIC2.0. Additionally, she has presented several communications at inter-
national congresses, such as the American Educational Research Association
(AERA, Washington 2016). Currently, her research focuses on the role of computer-
supported collaborative learning to promote distributed leadership in inquiry-based
educational programs addressed to high school students.
Maria Lidia Mascia is a psychologist and Ph.D. at the University of Pavia. Since
2011, she is a contract professor in Experimental Psychology at the University of
Cagliari. She is mainly involved in the educational technology investigation, in
motivational and self-regulation processes, and in academic dropout prevention.
About the Authors xiii
Tassos Anastassios Mikropoulos holds a B.Sc. in Physics and a Ph.D. on optical
signal processing from the University of Athens. He is a professor of the Department of
Primary Education and dean of the School of Education at the University of Ioannina, as
well as the director of the “Educational Approaches to Virtual Reality Technologies
Laboratory (EARTH lab).” Tassos Mikropoulos is the elected chair of the Hellenic
Association of ICT in Education. His research interests include educational technology,
virtual reality in education, and educational neuroscience. His work has been published
in many referred journals and conferences with more than 1000 citations. He is a member
of the editorial board and reviewer for many international journals. Professor Mikropoulos
has been a project director, principle investigator, and consultant in n umerous research
& development and educational projects. He also serves as a consultant for the Greek
Ministry of Education on topics such as the digital school, ICT in education curricula,
educational software, and the professional training of in-service teachers.
Leila A. Mills is an adjunct professor of computer sciences at St. Edward’s
University, USA. She conducted postdoctoral research on learning and liking of
science at the LIGO science education center in Livingston, LA. A former systems
analyst and secondary math teacher, her research is focused on students’ attitudes
toward school, learning preference, information behavior, and learning with tech-
nology. Dr. Mills has a Ph.D. from the University of North Texas in Educational
Computing/Learning Technologies and an M.A. from the University of Texas at
Dallas in Interdisciplinary Studies and Information Technology.
Karen Murcia (Ph.D.) is Deputy Head School of Education at Curtin University in
Perth, Western Australia. She champions STEM education and leadership practices in
the sector. Her research has focussed on education for scientific literacy and numeracy
within technology-enhanced learning environments. She has worked extensively in
school-based research partnerships and engaged teachers with the process of designing,
implementing and evaluating new strategies for improving teaching and students’
learning outcomes. Dr. Murcia’s research has also included evaluation studies of the
status of STEM education in Western Australia and significant public science education
programs. She is a board member of Scitech, the preeminent Science Centre in WA, and
Child Australia, which is an early years care and education organisation dedicated to
improving development outcomes and the status of young children in society.
Paul Newhouse (Ph.D.) is an associate professor in educational computing at Edith
Cowan University in Perth, Western Australia. He is currently the director of the Centre
for Schooling and Learning Technologies (CSaLT) in the School of Education. He has
always considered himself to be both a teacher and learner from early years in an
innovative state secondary school in Western Australia, to conducting research in
schools, and working with pre-service and practicing teachers at two universities. His
aim has been to improve the opportunities for all children to develop as decision-making,
empowered, responsible, relational citizens through engaging and relevant schooling.
His focus is on implementation strategies for using digital technologies to support
learning in schools, particularly as applied to portable computing, assessment and cur-
riculum development in technology education.
xiv About the Authors
Masato Noguchi is a B.S. in Science and Technology at Sophia University, Japan.
He received a B.S. degree in 2016. His research interests include learning t echnology,
especially R&D of digital textbooks to support learners.
Jelke van der Pal is senior scientist at the Netherlands Aerospace Centre with 20 years
of experience in aviation training research. He graduated as experimental p sychologist
and holds a Ph.D. (University of Twente, Netherlands) on interactive graphics for
Formal Logic courseware. He was coordinator of the ADAPTIT project focusing on
personalized training of air-traffic control and aircraft maintenance skills, and co-super-
vised a PhD project on this topic. He has been active in ten other international projects
(EU, NATO, Eurostars). In recent years, he is focusing on principles behind effective
simulation and game-based learning and how to determine and predict effectiveness. In
this effort, he seeks to connect approaches for Educational Data Mining, Competency-
Based Training, Performance-Based Training, and Adaptive Training.
Nikiforos Papachristos holds a Bachelor degree in Physics and Education, a
Master’s degree in “ICT and Mathematics in Education,” and a Ph.D. in Learning
Technologies from the University of Ioannina (UOI). He is currently a research
associate at the Educational Approaches to Virtual Reality Lab of UOI and director
of the UOI Internship Office. His research interests focus mainly on virtual reality
in education and learning technologies. His work has been published in peer-
reviewed journals and conference proceedings. He has participated as a project
manager, educator, instructional designer, and software developer in national and
international educational R&D, and training projects on adult education, teacher
education, and educational software development. Dr. Papachristos has substantial
research and teaching experience in higher education and collaborates with the
Computer Technology Institute (supervised by the Greek Ministry of Education) as
an expert educational technology consultant on the Digital School national project.
Martine Paquet has been a prominent and innovative educator in the New Brunswick
Canadian school system for 23 years. As a specialist in French, mathematics, and sci-
ence, Martine has assisted many students to excel into the science and medical fields
(STEAM). She is a passionate educator with a flare for presentation and engagement.
Enthusiastic in front of a public, dedicated, and engaged, Martine became an entrepre-
neur, a speaker, a technology integrationist, and a Vizwik Ambassador, working
around the world from 2013 to 2015: San Francisco (Vodafone Xone 2013), New York
(Education Business Forum 2014), Barcelona (World Mobile Congress 2013),
London (Bett 2015), Montreal (EdMedia 2015), Denver (ISTE2016) and educating
dozens of schools on data flow programming. She is also part of an important group
of experts and researchers at the University of Moncton, NB, CompéTICA, and she
published a research paper as a coauthor on computational thinking and its educa-
tional implications (June 2015). She is also on a board of directors of APTICA (French
Conference on Technology) since 2005 and a member of the board of another
Bilingual Conference Atlantic Education Summit. She is currently teaching French
and Technology at Moncton High School in New Brunswick and is also at Logics
Academy Facilitator in robotics (www.martinepaquet.com).
About the Authors xv
Maria Pietronilla Penna is full professor in Experimental Psychology at the
University of Cagliari. She is mainly involved in the investigation and assess-
ment of brain functions and cognitive processes in life span. One of her research
topic concerns the investigation of the factors underpinning well-being in
adulthood.
Eliano Pessa is a full professor of General Psychology at the University of
Pavia. Among his many research interests, there is the investigation of cognitive
processes related to memory, visual perception, and decision making, both in
terms of behavioral studies and computational models based on artificial neural
networks.
Erin E. Peters-Burton is the Donna R. and David E. Sterling Endowed Professor
in Science Education and Director of the Center for Social Equity through Science
Education at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. Her research agenda is
based on the idea that all students should build self-awareness of how they learn
science and engineering.
She works to help students, see themselves as “science-m inded,” and help
teachers create classrooms that support student skills to develop scientific
k nowledge. To accomplish this, she pursues research projects that investigate ways
that students and teachers can use self-regulated learning theory in science and
e ngineering, as well as how inclusive STEM schools can help students succeed.
Manoli Pifarré is an Associate Professor (tenure track) in Educational Psychology
at the Universitat de Lleida (Spain) and Honorary Research Fellow at the Graduate
School of Education, University of Exeter (UK). Nowadays, she leads the Context
and Cognition with ICT research group (web site: www.contic.udl.cat). Her interest
of research is based on how ICT shapes subject’s cognition. In this topic of study,
she has led different R+D projects.
Currently, she is researching on pedagogical and technological design for sup-
porting and promoting collaborative creativity processes with technology. Global
economy and societal fast-paced changes demand to be faced from a creative and
collaborative point of view. In this context, the design of learning scenarios medi-
ated by technology capable to develop and orchestrate key collaborative processes
is needed. This topic is the base of a research project founded by Spanish Government
named CreaCOnTIC2.0 and which is currently lead by Dr. Pifarré.
Christopher Roos is an R&D engineer and program manager in aviation Human
Factors. He has a background in cognitive psychology with a focus on HMI and
safety. As a researcher for the Netherlands Aerospace Center—NLR, he does
research on a variety of different aviation topics with a focus on high volume
information processing, aeronautical decision making, and human–machine
interactions. He is passionate about increasing aviation safety and holds a no-non-
sense approach to applying innovations in design, training, procedures, or the orga-
nization to reduce risks and increase effectiveness.
xvi About the Authors
Demetrios Sampson is a Professor of Digital Systems for Learning and Education at
the Department of Digital Systems, University of Piraeus, Greece, where he serves as
Academic Staff since 2001 and a Professor of Learning Technologies at the School of
Education, Curtin University, Australia, since 2015. He is the coauthor of 365 articles in
scientific books, journals, and conferences and the editor of 12 books, 32 special issues,
and 35 international conference proceedings. He has received 10 times Best Paper
Award in International Conferences. He has been a Keynote/Invited Speaker/Lecturer
in 75 International/National Conferences and/or Postgraduate Programs around the
world. He has been project director, principle investigator, and/or research consultant in
70 Research and Innovation projects with external funding at the range of 16 Million€.
He has supervised 155 honors and postgraduate students to successful completion.
He has developed and delivers the first MOOC on the use of Educational Data
Analytics by School Teachers (Analytics for the Classroom Teacher), offered by the
edX platform which has attracted more than 7000 participants from 145 countries
around the world since October 2016.
He served as editor-in-chief of one of the first open access journals in educational
technology, the Educational Technology & Society Journal, 2003–2018. He has also
served or serves as member of the Steering Committee and/or Advisory and/or Editorial
Board of 25 International/National Journals, in various leadership roles in 75 International
Conferences and at the Program Committee of 500 International/National Conferences.
He is the recipient of the IEEE Computer Society Distinguished Service Award
(July 2012) and named a Golden Core Member of IEEE Computer Society in rec-
ognition of his contribution to the field of Learning Technologies (January 2013)
(www.ask4research.info).
Eleni Schiza holds a bachelor in linguistics and a master’s degree in e-learning.
She is currently a high school teacher. Her research interests include e-learning and
Web 2.0 in education.
Stylianos Sergis received a B.Sc. in “Informatics and Telecommunications” (June
2010) from the Department of Informatics and Telecommunications of the National
and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece, and an M.Sc. in “Informatics in
Education” (June 2012) from the Faculty of Primary Education of the National and
Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. He was also awarded a Ph.D. from the
Department of Digital Systems of the University of Piraeus (June 2017). His
research focuses on Educational Data Analytics for supporting teaching and learn-
ing. He is the coauthor of 30 scientific publications. He has received two Best Paper
Awards in International Conferences on Learning Technologies (2016, 2017).
Ghanshaam Sewnath studied Industrial Design and Strategic Product Design at
the Delft University of Technology. After finishing his masters, he started working
as a game developer at Spil Games and Guerrilla Games. Currently, Ghanshaam is
working as an R&D Engineer at the NLR, designing and managing production of
applications for emerging technologies, such as augmented reality and virtual real-
ity, but also developing exciting new simulation hardware using various technolo-
gies, such as advanced hand and eye-tracking sensors.
About the Authors xvii
Simone Smala is a lecturer in the School of Education, The University of Queensland,
in Brisbane, Australia. Simone teaches large first and second year courses in teacher
education in the areas of sociology of education and educational psychology. Her
research focuses on bilingual education, social media, and out-of-classroom language
learning. Simone is part of the global INNOCLILiG group centered at the University of
Heidelberg in Germany, with a focus on research into bilingual education using German
as a medium of instruction. Furthermore, Simone works with other researchers in
Australia and the UK in projects on language pathways, language and social cohesion,
bilingual education in Anglophone countries, and biliteracy in early primary bilingual
education. Simone runs the Facebook group CLIL Support Dr. Simone Smala UQ.
Yasuhisa Tamura is a Professor of Learning Technology in the department of
Information and Communication Science at Sophia University, Japan. He received
M.Eng. and Dr. Eng. degrees at Sophia University in 1987 and 1996, respectively.
He is presidents of Japan Association for Learning Analytics and Japan e-Learning
Association. He is also director of ICT Connect 21 (Association for Digitalization
of Education in Japan) and Asuka Academy (NPO for MOOC translation). He is
also a coeditor at ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36 (Learning Technology) WG8 (Learning
Analytics). His research areas include digital textbooks, learning analytics, support
and evaluation of active learning, and motor skill learning support.
Panagiotis Tsiotakis holds a bachelor and a master’s degree in computer science,
and a Ph.D. in e-learning. He is currently serving as computer science teacher in
high schools. Dr. Tsiotakis has a great research experience concerning e-learning,
communities of learning, Web 2.0 platforms and social media in education. He was
involved in various national and EU research and development projects regarding
teachers’ professional development and ICT in education. His publication activity
includes articles in peer-reviewed international journals, international and Greek
books (chapters), as well as international and national conferences proceedings.
Thomina Voziki received a Bachelor of Education (June 2014) from the Faculty of
Primary Education of the Democritus University of Thrace, Greece, and an M.Sc. in
“e-Learning” (2016) from the Department of Digital Systems, University of Piraeus,
Greece.
Jenny S. Wakefield holds a Ph.D. in Learning Technologies with a minor in
Philosophy from the University of North Texas. She currently works as an instruc-
tional designer at Dallas County Community College District, Dallas, Texas, sup-
porting faculty with online course designs. Jenny has taught Computer Applications,
Instructional Design, and Proposal Writing & Grant Administration. Her recent
instructional design work includes supporting learning of twenty-first century stu-
dents in higher education using technologies such as in the design, development,
and implementation of Old Alton, a computer applications course delivered using
transmedia storytelling with alternate reality game components at UNT, the use of
virtual worlds in the UT Dallas Student Second Life Success Program, and the
online course design for the UT Dallas Freshman course UNIV1010.
xviii About the Authors
Jenny has published research and theory journal articles and book chapters on
instructional design and the use of social media, games for learning, simulations,
virtual worlds, and transmedia in education. Journal articles include publications in
the International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments,
Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, TechTrends, and
the International Journal of E-Learning.
Maria Assunta Zanetti Ph.D. is a full professor of General Psychology at the
University of Pavia.
Her research interests are related to the investigation of the development of
p rocesses related to learning, to motivation, and to decision making.
Part I
Transforming the Learning Environment
Chapter 1
School Leadership: An Analysis
of Competence Frameworks
Stylianos Sergis, Thomina Voziki, and Demetrios Sampson
Abstract School leadership is considered a core aspect of successful school
improvement across the world, especially in the light of the emerging paradigms of
increased school autonomy and accountability. However, despite the importance of
school leadership, the definition of this concept has been perceived from diverse
standpoints, leading to a multitude of different school leadership models. On the
other hand, as the role of school leaders is enhanced, the competences that the
school leaders need to attain and demonstrate are also continuously updated. In this
shifting context, this chapter aims to shed light on the contemporary understanding
of K-12 school leadership models and competence frameworks through a system-
atic analysis in international scholarly and educational policy literature and the
proposal of a school leadership competence “meta-framework,” as a synthesis of
the up-to-date school leader competences.
1.1 I ntroduction
Schools constitute learning ecosystems, consisting of a wide range of actors, includ-
ing among others school leaders, teachers, students, parents, as well as infrastruc-
ture and policies [1]. In this complex ecosystem, school leaders, including school
principals and innovative school teachers [2], have been reported as a key agent for
planning, orchestrating, monitoring, and evaluating systemic school performance
[3, 4]. School leaders engage in a diverse set of tasks related with teaching, learning,
and assessment for promoting students’ learning experiences and achievements,
promoting and supporting continuous staff development, planning and monitoring
S. Sergis (*) · T. Voziki 3
Department of Digital Systems, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece
D. Sampson
Department of Digital Systems, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece
School of Education, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
D. Sampson et al. (eds.), Digital Technologies: Sustainable Innovations for
Improving Teaching and Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73417-0_1
4 S. Sergis et al.
available resources (including infrastructure), meeting the external accountability
requirements, and cultivating a nurturing school culture with the extended school
community.
However, despite the globally recognized increasing importance of school lead-
ers, the concept of School Leadership has been defined from diverse standpoints,
leading to a multitude of school leadership models proposed in literature [5–7]. This
proliferation of definitions is mirrored in the significant array of school leadership
models that have emerged in order to capture the characteristics of school
leadership.
On the other hand, within the emerging educational policies for school autonomy
and data-driven evidence-based accountability, the school leaders are expected to
attain and demonstrate a complex set of professional competences. As new layers of
internal and external accountability emerge and efficient school improvement
becomes a critical focus of school leadership, the competence sets that are required
to meet these expectations are gradually expanding and updating. Therefore, around
the world, a multitude of different school leadership competence frameworks have
been defined to capture this expanding proliferation [8–10].
In this context, this chapter aims to provide an overview of the contemporary
global understanding around school leadership, in terms of both school leadership
models and school leadership competences and present a summarizing “meta-
framework” of school leadership competences, which is created as a critical synthe-
sis of the existing competence frameworks. This competence “meta-framework” is
formulated so as to provide a consolidated understanding of the required compe-
tences that contemporary school leaders are expected to attain and demonstrate in
order to meet the emerging challenges for school autonomy and school account-
ability [11].
The remainder of the chapter is as follows. Section 1.2 presents the concept of
School Leadership and an overview of School Leadership Models. Section 1.3 pres-
ents and discusses the key existing School Leadership Competence framework.
Section 1.4 proposes a meta-framework of School Leadership competences and
Sect. 1.5 presents the conclusions drawn.
1.2 School Leadership Models
In international academic and educational policy literature, there are different
and sometimes contradicting definitions of school leadership [12]. These diverse
definitions are derived from the different perspectives of leadership as well as
the different educational policies that are employed in different parts of the
world [6, 13]. A commonly cited definition of school leadership is “a process of
influence leading to the achievement of desired purposes, requiring successful
leaders to develop a vision for their schools based on their personal and profes-
sional values” ([14], p. 5).
1 School Leadership: An Analysis of Competence Frameworks 5
There is a wide body of evidence supporting school leadership as one of the most
critical factors for school improvement [2, 15, 16]. The influence of school leader-
ship is holistic across all school layers [17], spanning from ensuring high quality
educational outcomes [18] to staff development and sustaining organizational
improvement [3, 19]. Moreover, these processes are becoming increasingly chal-
lenging considering the global trend towards school autonomy, which assign more
degrees of freedom and responsibility to school leaders [20, 21]. However, even
though school leadership has emerged as an important subject in educational policy
and academic research, the diversity of the different leadership models as well as
competence frameworks is notable.
One of the most common school leadership models in the literature is the
Instructional Leadership. The core characteristics of instructional leaders is their
active engagement in the teaching and learning processes and practices of the
school, by discussing such practices with the school teachers, promoting their per-
sonal growth, and giving them feedback [12, 22]. School leaders could become
instructional leaders by focusing on monitoring and evaluating teaching and learn-
ing of their school teachers [23]. Effective instructional leadership is sustained
through learning communities and continuous monitoring and assessment of the
curriculum, pedagogy, student, and adult learning [24]. The instructional leadership
model has been widely accepted and implemented in many countries from England
(by [25]) to South Africa (through ACE: School Leadership Model).
Another common school leadership model is Managerial Leadership.
Leithwood et al. [26] define managerial leadership as the model which focuses on
functions, tasks, and behaviors. The “managerial” leader concerns primarily with
the successful management of existing activities, often to the expense of innovation
and change within the school [27, 28].
Another school leadership model is the Executive Leadership model. The
National College for Leadership of Schools in England [29] defines executive head-
ship as the leader role of a principal leading two or more schools, typically, a federa-
tion or other formal school partnership (e.g., a whole-town group of schools working
together). It is common for an executive school leader to provide help to a low-
performance school, for a specific term until this school confronts its difficulties.
Distributed Leadership refers to a leadership model based on shared leadership
among school principals, teachers, administrators, and other actors of the school
ecosystem. It comprises a group or network of interactions between school actors,
who base their collaboration on knowledge and ideas and not on power. The basic
feature of this relationship is trust, a necessary trait for building an organizational
team [30] and of course the responsibilities distribution.
Another school leadership model is the Transformational Leadership model.
The transformational leader provides intellectual stimulation and offers individual-
ized support, driving flexible, collaborative, and responsive school strategic plan-
ning and culture formation [31, 32].
A similar school leadership model is the Transactional Leadership. Bass &
Riggio [33] defined transactional leadership as the interaction between “followers”
and leaders who, in turn, directly affect the behaviors of “followers.”
6 S. Sergis et al.
Finally, the System Leadership model involves school leaders collaborating to
support and improve schools and partners other than their own when they meet dif-
ficulties [34, 35]. NCSL [29] defines system leaders as those who work beyond their
own school to support other schools, sharing and harnessing the best resources that
the system can offer to bring about improvement in their own and other organiza-
tions. System leaders should share a set of main characteristics [36, 37]: (a) collabo-
ration with other leaders to achieve their goals for school success; (b) commitment
to accord their school as an organization for helping other schools; (c) understand-
ing of their role as supportive actors for the greater benefit of the education service
as a whole.
1.3 S chool Leadership Competence Frameworks
As the role of school leaders is enhanced, the competences that the school leaders
need to attain and demonstrate are also continuously updated. In this section, we
present and discuss 15 school leadership competence frameworks from USA,
Europe, and Australia.
1.3.1 C F1: Professional Standards for Educational Leaders
California School Leadership Academy [38] defines a school leadership compe-
tence framework with 6 competence dimensions and 43 competences. These dimen-
sions span from the shared vision a school leader should create in the school
community towards reaching the school improvement goals; the continuous aim for
student-centered learning and staff’s professional development; the overarching
administration and management of the school organization, for ensuring an effec-
tive learning environment with the provision of human and material resources to
support every single student; cultivating community bonding with other schools
and the community; promote a personal code of ethics for students and staff to fol-
low; and finally, promote context relative to politics, socio-economics, legacy,
and culture for their school, to effectively incorporate external (federal, state, etc.)
regulations, policies, and mandates, so as to ensure full compliance of the school.
1.3.2 C F2: Standards for School Administrators
The North Carolina State Board of Education [60] defines a school leadership com-
petence framework with 7 competence dimensions and 21 competences. These
competences are defined in loose accordance with existing leadership models, aim-
ing to incorporate aspects of each one in the required competence set. In particular,
1 School Leadership: An Analysis of Competence Frameworks 7
it comprises Strategic Leadership, to include competences for designing the
school vision and goals to twenty-first century needs; Instructional Leadership, to
promote collaborative structures within the school for staff and students and trigger
expertise sharing; Cultural Leadership to cultivate an identity of respect and sup-
port within the school community; Human Resource Leadership, to facilitate
developing this identity through a collaborative school environment with high val-
ued and qualified staff partaking in school decision-making; Managerial
Leadership to cover aspects of internal accountability of staff and other administra-
tion tasks (such as budgeting) as well as fostering communication channels between
the leader and the wider “team” (such as staff, parents, students); External
Development Leadership, to promote creative sharing of responsibilities and tasks
to effectively achieve the school goals and students; and finally, Micropolitical
Leadership to remain up-to-date with policy and practice trends, new technologies,
interests and issues with potential effects on school policies, practices, and
procedures.
1.3.3 CF3: School Turnaround Leaders: Competences
for Success
The Chicago Public Education Fund [39] defines a school leadership competence
framework with 4 competence dimensions and 10 competences. These dimensions
include Driving for Results, referring to the competences that leaders should attain
for achieving their own goals for the improvement of school performance;
Influencing for Results, referring to the motivation and sense of support a leader
should provide to their staff; Problem-Solving Practices, in the sense of effectively
outlining the most effective strategies (potentially harnessing the power of educa-
tional data analytics) for meeting school goals and addressing issues; finally, the
Self-Recognition of the leader (self-assessment), which is an overarching compe-
tence to drive the other dimensions and the leaders’ actions towards personal and
organizational improvement.
1.3.4 C F4: The School Leadership Model
The Urban School Leadership Center [40] defines a school leadership competence
framework with 4 competence clusters and 12 competences. These clusters are the
Enabling cluster, which includes the competences related to designing and pro-
moting school vision across staff and students; the Operating cluster which refers
to the procurement and maintenance of appropriate school infrastructure to meet the
school vision; the Relating cluster, describing competences for initiating and sus-
taining communication channels within the school and empowering shared
8 S. Sergis et al.
responsibility of leadership; finally, the Sustaining cluster which includes the lead-
er’s ability to sustain a stable teaching and learning environment with clear priori-
ties for improvement.
1.3.5 C F5: Standards for Administrators
The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) [41] defines 21 com-
petences which appertain to five broader categories. These categories refer, respec-
tively, to the need for designing a shared school vision; aligning this vision with a
culture and continuous push to meet the emerging needs of the digital age for stu-
dents; striving to realize this vision and culture through excellence in professional
practice that consistently and meaningfully incorporates digital technologies and
digital skills for students; additionally, leaders should aim to orchestrate their staff
professional development, community building, and infrastructure procurement in
line with the previous dimensions (Systemic Improvement); they boost teaching
and learning operations and support teachers’ advance academic and operational
goals, hire highly competent personnel and afford the appropriate infrastructure and
technology systems; and finally, promote and raise school-wide awareness on
social, ethical, and legal issues and responsibilities related to an evolving digital
culture (Digital Citizenship).
1.3.6 C F6: Teacher Leader Model Standards
The Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium [42] defines a teacher leadership
competence framework with 7 competence dimensions (clusters) and 37 compe-
tences. These competence dimensions loosely address the overarching aspects of
support and collaboration with staff towards professional development and
enhancing student learning; using classroom and school-based data to improve
curriculum, school organization, and school culture; promoting reflective dialogue
with staff to identify appropriate teaching practices and methods to improve stu-
dent and practice; collaborating for selecting formative and summative assess-
ment methods and tools that are aligned to state and local standards and building
community relationships with families, community members, business and com-
munity leaders, and other stakeholders; aligning school practices with external
educational policies in local, state, and national level; and lastly, orchestrating
the school’s financial, human, and other material resources to provide the
opportunity to develop a learning community based on professionalism and com-
mon goals [42].
1 School Leadership: An Analysis of Competence Frameworks 9
1.3.7 C F7: National Professional Qualification for Headship
Competence Framework
The National College for School Leadership [43] defines a teacher leadership com-
petence framework with 3 competence clusters and 16 competences. The first clus-
ter is Educational Excellence, referring to the capacity of leaders to transform
challenges of the school to solutions and strategies, informed by the state-of-the-art
understanding in leadership practice, towards improving the outcomes for all pupils
through an effective self-improving system. The second competence cluster refers
to Strategic Leadership, defining the required capacity for setting goals, accom-
plishing a shared vision, and leading in an efficient way. Finally, Operational
Management focuses on developing processes for school improvement, such as
fostering school community of trust and support, provision of feedback and motiva-
tion to their staff, and clear expectations to achieve their goals.
1.3.8 C F8: Leadership Competence Framework
The National Child Welfare Workforce Institute [44] develops a Leadership
Competence Framework which entails 5 competence dimensions and 31 compe-
tences. Leading Change refers to the competences for setting school overarching
goals and objectives, managing risks, and implementing plans to realize the goals.
These tasks typically exploit the potential of educational data and also require part-
nerships with external communities and actors, such as federal agencies, private
sector organizations, and parents (Leading in Context). Leading for Results
focuses specifically on how to develop such collaboration networks and build stra-
tegic relationships to accomplish the school vision. Leading People addresses the
aspect of conflict management, staff professional development, and building a nur-
turing culture across the school. Finally, the competence framework also defines a
set of Fundamental Competences mainly referring to the leaders’ capacity for
social responsibility and integrity of outcomes against the community, fostering
communication and interpersonal relationships with different stakeholders as well
as engaging in continuous self-improvement and learning.
1.3.9 CF9: Central5—A Central European View
on Competencies for School Leaders
The Central5 competence framework [45] defines a school leadership competence
framework with 5 competence dimensions and 316 competences. In Leading and
Managing Learning and Teaching competence dimension, the school leader has
10 S. Sergis et al.
to create a supportive learning environment and ensure that the resources of the
school are directed to that purpose. The Leading and Managing Change dimen-
sion describes competences for communicating the vision for the school’s future
development. The Self Leading and Management competence focuses on reflec-
tion on the impact of decisions and behaviors, so as to foster improvement and
decision-making capacity. Lead and Manage Others refers to the aspect of inspir-
ing, motivating, and encouraging other actors of the school community (e.g., stu-
dents, teachers, parents) to collaborate and take up responsibilities for reaching
school goals. Finally, leading effectively in all the above dimensions is driven by
Leading and Managing the Institution, which refers to the orchestration of the
financial, human, technological, and physical resources of the school.
1.3.10 CF10: Leadership Standards for Principals and Vice-
Principals in British Columbia
The British Columbia Principals’ & Vice-Principals’ Association [46] 0defines a
school leadership competence framework with 5 competence dimensions. The first
competence dimension is about Moral Stewardship and refers to the leaders’ con-
cern of setting and supporting morality and ethics in school decisions. The second
competence dimension concerns the Instructional Leadership and emphasizes on
the data-driven quality improvement of teaching and learning for students by creat-
ing the curriculum and monitoring its impact on students’ learning. The third com-
petence dimension, Relational Leadership, describes the significance of emotional
intelligence and the effect that causes leader’s intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cul-
tural competences in student and adult learning and achievement. Finally, the
Organizational Leadership competence dimension refers to leaders strategically
planning and delivering support for student development and, also, fostering com-
munication among schools, families, and the community.
1.3.11 CF11: School Leadership Framework
Denver Public Schools [47] defines a school leadership competence framework
with 6 competence dimensions and 13 competences. Culture and Equity
Leadership describes that leaders should set expectations for their students and
staff and drive them to meet them. Instructional Leadership refers to effective
teaching and learning practices, with a particular focus on inclusive considerations
for students with disabilities. Human Resource Leadership refers to the manage-
ment of staff and improving their potential for meeting the school goals. Furthermore,
it also refers to the capacity of leaders to reflect on their decisions, based on feed-
back from other school actors. In line with the previous category, Strategic
1 School Leadership: An Analysis of Competence Frameworks 11
Leadership establishes systems, structures, and processes for collaborative data-
driven decision-making and a flexible culture for nurturing meaningful innovation.
Organizational Leadership refers to aspects of overarching school management
(such as financial resources). Finally, Community Leadership posits the impor-
tance of sustaining a flow of opinions, ideas, and interests from diverse stakeholders
so as to inform school values and school culture.
1.3.12 C F12: School Leadership Competence Continuum
The Department of Education in New York City [48] defines a school leadership
competence framework with 5 competence dimensions. Personal Leadership pro-
motes students’ high-level performance, by exploiting a clear vision and strategic
planning. Moreover, understanding and analyzing data from multiple sources is
considered essential for setting and meeting school goals. Resources and
Operations reflect the need to align procurement of resources and design of opera-
tions to the insights generated by the analysis of data. Also, Curriculum and
Instruction refers to supporting and providing feedback on teacher teaching prac-
tices, as well as offering professional development opportunities, leading to
improved learning and meeting students’ diverse learning needs. Finally, school
leaders need to foster collaboration and communication ties with the school com-
munity (including parents).
1.3.13 C F13: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
Standards
The Council of Chief State School Officers [49] defines a school leadership compe-
tence framework with 10 competence dimensions and 79 competences. School
leaders should formulate a common vision and mission for the school, as well as
outline a plan to meet this vision through data-driven decision making and
instructional planning. Furthermore, providing constructive feedback to their staff
and ensuring the presence of culturally consistent pedagogy and assessment are
considered vital aspects of professional culture for teachers and staff. Creating
a community of equity for their students is also outlined as a competence category,
placing a particular focus on using digital technology and cultivating twenty-first
century skills. Community building with families and other stakeholders are also
considered vital, as well as formulating and adhering to ethical principles and
professional norms for all school staff and students. All the previous need to be
reflected in the school curriculum design and planning, including meaningful
courses and assessment programs. Finally, leaders should also be able to effectively
manage the school improvement process by improving the operations, the dis-
trict values, and mission [49].
12 S. Sergis et al.
1.3.14 CF14: The Australian Professional Standard
for Principals
The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [50] defines a
Professional Standard for Principals that comprises three leadership competence
dimensions that are further divided in five areas of professional practice.
The first practice is Leading Teaching and Learning, stressing the pivotal role
of leadership to promote effective teaching and practices and aim for self-regulation
in students’ learning. Developing Self and Others focuses on the need to build a
supportive and collaborative professional learning community to sustain profes-
sional development and experience sharing. Leading Improvement, Innovation,
and Change posits the notion that school leaders need to cooperate with colleagues
to create and implement school improvement plans and policies in an evidence-
based way. School Management refers to the tasks of overseeing, orchestrating,
and evaluating the performance and practices of staff, so as to drive targeted reme-
dying actions. Finally, Engaging and Working with the Community argues for
the setting up and exploitation of collaboration and communication channels with
external stakeholders and communities, so as to exchange information and expertise
for the benefit of school performance.
1.3.15 C F15: Teacher Leader Competence Framework
The Teacher Leader Competence Framework Professional Standard for Principals
defines a teacher leadership competence framework with 3 competence clusters and
23 competences. (Leading [51]). The Self-Cluster of Competences concerns the
personality competences of the leader. The Coaching Others Cluster of
Competences refers to competences for identifying challenges, designing solu-
tions, and realizing them through strategic planning that also involves staff. The
Leading Teams Cluster of Competences focuses on the importance of supporting
staff reflection and how leaders can inspire staff to engage in such reflection to meet
school values and drive improvement.
Table 1.1 presents a summary of the identified school leadership competence
frameworks.
1.4 Synthesizing a School Leadership Meta-Framework
This section describes a school leadership competence meta-framework, derived as
a critical synthesis of existing school leadership competence frameworks discussed
in the previous section.
Table 1.1 Summary of the school leadership competence frameworks 1 School Leadership: An Analysis of Competence Frameworks
CF School competence frameworks Entity Country Year #Competence domains
2014 # competences
1 California Professional Standards for Educational California State USA 6/43
Leaders 2013
2008 7/21
2 Standards for School Executives North Carolina State Board of Education USA 2008 4/10
2009 4/12
3 School Turnaround Leaders: Competences for success The Chicago Public Education Fund USA 5/21
2010
4 The School Leadership Model The Urban School Leadership Center UK 7/37
2011
5 Standards for Administrators ISTE, International Society for USA 3/16
Technology in Education 2011
5/31
6 Teacher Leader Model Standards Teacher Leadership Exploratory USA 2012
Consortium 5/316
2013
7 National Professional Qualification for Headship National College for School Leadership UK 4/9
competence framework 2017
2013 6/13
8 Leadership Competence Framework NCWWI, National Child Welfare USA 2014 5/-
Workforce Institute 10/79
2014
9 Central5: A Central European view on competencies International Cooperation for School Europe 5/-
2015
for school leaders Leadership 3/23
10 Leadership standards for Principals and Vice- BCPVPA, British Columbia Principals’ Canada
Principals in British Columbia & Vice-Principals’ Association
11 School Leadership Framework DPS, Denver Public Schools USA
12 School Leadership Competence Continuum New York City Department of Education USA
13 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium CCSSO, Council of Chief State School USA
Standards Officers
14 The Australian Professional Standard AITSL, Australian Institute for Teaching Australia
for Principals and School Leadership
15 Teacher Leader Competence Framework Leading Educators USA
13
14 S. Sergis et al.
Leading the internal processes of
school organization
Technology
Development and literacy Curriculum and
communication assessment
of a common design
vision
Staff’s
professional
School and personal
organization’s development
consistency with
Leading the local,district and state
external
educational policies Student’s Leading the
processes of staff and
the school Competences performance monitoring students
organization and development
Community Problem
bonding with solving and
the school
institution decision-
making
Ethical Self
consistency assessment
Leading Self
Fig. 1.1 School leadership competence meta-framework
Figure 1.1 presents an overview of the proposed meta-framework. The meta-
framework is organized around 4 competence domains as follows:
1 . Leading the internal processes of the school organization
2 . Leading the staff and students
3 . Leading self
4. Leading the external processes of the school organization
Each domain has been selected based on the analysis of the school leadership
competence frameworks, presented in the previous sections. The process followed
to define this competence meta-framework comprised the following steps:
• Initially, a list with all identified competences from all existing frameworks was
formulated
• A grouping of the common competences under broader competence areas was
performed, utilizing competence areas from the existing frameworks.
• Finally, the competence areas were organized under the four general domains.
1 School Leadership: An Analysis of Competence Frameworks 15
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Frequency (f)
15
15
15
10
10
9
8
8
7
7
Consistency withStTCeuEetodSdCcthueiumShaPrccfnCrernftmliaafooltocui-lDDbunlmooAliCeetensguovvmyasynlmeeomllesBnLioopsiSotDssppotoVlneleiiremmmvsdsciiiiianeeengnoccennntgngyttnys
Competence Areas
Fig. 1.2 Frequencies of school leadership competence areas in existing frameworks
Figure 1.2 presents the frequencies of each competence area in the 15 identified
competence frameworks described in the previous section. As Fig. 1.2 depicts, the
most common competence areas in the studied frameworks were “Development and
communication of a common vision,” “Staff professional and personal develop-
ment,” as well as “Students’ performance monitoring and development.”
Respectively, “Technology Literacy” and “Ethical Consistency” are noted as sig-
nificant, followed by “community bonding with the school institution,” “Curriculum
and assessment design,” and “Problem-solving and decision-making.” Finally, com-
petences on “Self-assessment” of the leader and the “organization of the school
according to local, district and state educational policies” are slightly less, yet still
commonly, referred in the existing competence frameworks.
Tables 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 present a description of the competences that com-
prise each of the four competence domains of the meta-framework, respectively,
and which comprise a critical summary of the existing school leadership compe-
tences from the identified frameworks.
Table 1.2 Competences of “Leading the internal processes of the school organization” 16 S. Sergis et al.
Domain Leading the internal processes of the school organization
Competence areas/
related Development and communication of Curriculum and assessment design/
frameworks a common vision/CF_1–15 Technology literacy/CF_2,3,4,5,8,9,10,11,12,13 CF_1,2,6,9,10,11,13,15
Competences 1. Alignment with the twenty-first- 1. Procure appropriate school equipment and 1. Taking account of teachers’ opinion in
century skills technological resources curriculum design
2. Acceptance and handling any 2. Development of learner-centered 2. Curriculum scheduling in a way that
potential obstacles to vision technology environment which meets the maximizes time for teachers to learn,
accomplishment, such as diverse needs of all learners innovate, and plan together
objection from government
3. Risk management through 3. Acknowledge software variety and use 3. Promoting through curriculum the
instructional strategies twenty-first-century skills
4. Human and technical resources 4. Participation in learning communities that 4. Technology oriented curriculum, classes
arrangement
stimulate and nurture research about the use with information technology, technology
of technology systems in classrooms
5. Creative thinking, thinking “out of 5. Model and monitor the frequency and the 5. Continuous information about latest trends
in science and education. Looking for new
the box,” enriching school effective operation of technology in class learning and teaching methods
activities with art
6. Inspiration and motivation source 6. Promote staff training regarding state-of- 6. Flexible curriculum to the potential of all
learners, meaning personalized learning,
for his colleagues the-a rt educational studies on exploiting handling the students with special abilities
technology for school improvement
7. Priorities setting and plans
development consistent with other
school organizations around the
world
8. Active listening and team guide to
shared goals and objectives
9. Clear expectations for schools and
direct communication to
colleagues
Table 1.3 Competences of “Leading the staff and students”
Domain Leading the staff and students Students’ performance monitoring and Problem-solving and decision-making/
Competence areas/ development/CF_1–15 CF_1,2,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14, 15
related frameworks Staff’s professional and personal 1. Monitor and evaluate the learning
development/CF_1–15 1. Right use of problem-solving and
Competences processes and outcomes on a regular basis decision-making techniques, exploiting
1. Role modeling of the intended educational data across the school
behavior 2. Adaptation of new annotations into the
short-, medium-, or long-term plan of 2. Combination of justice, objection, and
2. Team building and curriculum priority of significant issues
collaboration, including
communities of practice 3. Hiring qualified staff that has the 3. Time management, as far as the meetings
appropriate training skills to handle with staff, community stakeholders, and
3. Data analysis, staff’s difficult situations and charismatic students setting of priorities
performance inside classroom as well
4. Data collection for objective assessment
4. Admission of mistakes, limit of 4. Appropriate infrastructure and technology of the emerging situations between
judge, giving a second chance systems to boost teaching and learning teachers, and fairness in decisions that
management and operations one has to make
5. Reflection and
acknowledgment of personal 5. Collection and interpretation of data by 5. Understanding of both spoken and
areas of strength and growth monitoring students’ performance unspoken factors that impact on
decisions and actions, meaning the
6. Sharing knowledge and 6. Maintain a high level of expectations from ability to understand the real intentions
experience with others students and staff. of staff and community
6. Conceptual thinking, “think out of the
box,” finds solutions to problems that
involve the majority of colleagues and
external partners
(continued)
Table 1.3 (continued) Leading the staff and students Students’ performance monitoring and Problem-solving and decision-making/
Staff’s professional and personal development/CF_1–15 CF_1,2,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14, 15
Domain development/CF_1–15 7. Promoted personalized learning, through 7. Simplify complex issues and give
Competence areas/
related frameworks 7. Accountability and diverse methods such as portfolios, strategic solutions to educational and
improvement of staff through one-to-one learning method, the concept of organizational challenges
constructive feedback “students’ voice,” small learning
communities, etc. 8. Devise alternative plans to meet
8. Communication of clear 8. Monitor students’ cognitive as well as unexpected circumstances
expectations through emotional progress
appropriate communication
models and techniques. 9. Exercise valid systems of performance and
behavior management
9. Manage conflicts through
appropriate methods and 10. Maximization of student engagement and
techniques learning
10. Handling poor performance by 11. Creation of safe, emotionally protective
providing career counseling and productive school environment, where
students’ voice is strong
11. Promote staff’s free expression
of differentiated opinions 12. Mutual trust development between school
community
12. Creation of a safe and equal
environment for effective 13. Emergence of students’ individuality and
discussions personality, ensuring this way that each
student is an active member of the school
13. Motivation and inspiration, for
achieving school goals and
take care of their personal
development through training
workshops and seminars
14. Staff’s empowerment and best 14. Celebrate students’ and school
employment of human achievements
potential, through seminars of
personal development and 15. Effective pedagogy to close learning gaps
workshops for team bonding
15. Responsibilities distribution
16. Definition of a clear legal and
ethical framework
17. The leader is aware of team
members’ skills and
achievements, so they can
deploy these skills in different
school projects or in actions
with the community
18. Best practices for each
educator to achieve the shared
vision
19. Support staff’s reflection,
discussion, and next steps to
future school goals
20 S. Sergis et al.
Table 1.4 Competences of “Leading self”
Domain Leading self Ethical consistency/
CF_2,3,6,7,9,10,12–14
Competence Self-assessment/CF_ 1. Sustainment of integrity
areas/Related 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
Frameworks and justice
1. Self-motivation, to be active in
Competences community actions with school, 2. Role model of fair decisions
student volunteering, culture and professional ethics
excursions
3. Defense for students’ rights
2. Awareness of personal characteristics
and skills 4. Actions in an open and
transparent manner, ensuring
3. Collecting data either from their point equity between staff,
of view or from feedback given by students, and community
staff, students, and other stakeholders
5. Support a school code of
4. Time and stress management for ethics, pertaining to all
prioritizing tasks and organizing time school leadership decisions
and resources in an effective way
5. Acknowledge of strengths and
weaknesses
6. Reflection of actions and decisions
and revision where is needed
The first domain of this meta-framework concerns the administrative role of the
school leader. The efficient school organization management begins from the inter-
nal processes administration. The leader should develop and promote a common
vision, mission, and goals which are clear, constructive, and feasible. These compe-
tences are mostly relevant to the executive, distributed, or transformational lead-
ership models.
The second domain of the meta-framework is the ability of school leaders to
guide effectively their staff and students. This aspect of the leader’s role is broadly
used in the majority of school leadership models, including instructional, manage-
rial, distributed, and transformational.
The third domain of the meta-framework concerns the capability of the school
leader to control himself and keep abreast of the latest pedagogical and method-
ological developments. A leader has to become a role model for others in ethical
behavior and use techniques for self-assessment. These competences are mostly
relevant to the managerial, distributed, and transformational school leadership
models.
Concluding, school leaders aim to develop appropriate systems, bring projects to
completion, and manage financial and material resources efficiently in order to meet
the learning goals. It is crucial for the leaders to collaborate with external partners
and be able to work with systems within the community, region, and the ministry of
education. This concern for the external school organization is met in instructional,
managerial, executive, distributed, and transactional leaders.
1 School Leadership: An Analysis of Competence Frameworks 21
Table 1.5 Competences of “Leading the external processes of the school organization”
Domain Leading the external processes of the school organization
Competence Community bonding with the School organization’s consistency with
areas/Related school institution/ local, district, and state educational
Frameworks CF_2,5,6,7,9,13,8,12 policies/CF_2,6,7,8,11,12,13
Competences 1. Nurture relationships with 1. Collaboration with the district and
families and other local leaders
community stakeholders
2. Cultivate communication 2. Public policies support and
and collaboration skills communication of school outcomes
to interested stakeholders
3. Respect the language, 3. Reassuring that the school operates
cultural, regional diversity consistently within the parameters of
of the families and federal, state, and local laws, policies,
community groups and regulations requirements
4. Equal treatment 4. Openness to constructive public
to community members conversations and advice about how
to improve student learning and
achievement
5. Provide community support 5. Staff assistance in monitoring and
services for all students, assessment of all the operations
such as internship programs,
scholarships, etc.
6. Provide appropriate space in 6. Network development and strategic
the buildings for students relationship building to achieve
with disabilities. common mission
7. Advocate for community’s 7. Efficient and effective management
policies and resources. of school finances
8. Social share of students’ 8. Establishment of efficient economical
achievements and administrative systems
1.5 Conclusions
Effective school leadership is becoming a vital aspect of school improvement across
the world. Thus, an up-to-date understanding of the different ways in which the
concept of school leadership has been perceived and operationalized in recent years
is useful. This chapter aimed to provide such insights and present a critical analysis
of the relevant scholarly and educational policy literature in the fields of school
leadership models and competence frameworks.
Regarding school leadership models, we have identified seven major models in
literature. Each model adopts a different standpoint in terms of the school organiza-
tion function areas that school leaders are explicitly dealing with. Furthermore,
these models describe diverse approaches on how leadership is actually distributed
between different actors of the school community [6]. In particular, initial models of
school leadership appear to promote a single leader position (the principal). This
individual was in charge of orchestrating diverse function areas of the school
22 S. Sergis et al.
organization depending on the leadership model adopted, for example, overseeing
and influencing the teaching practices (instructional leadership), or orchestrating
the managerial tasks of the school (managerial leadership) [6, 52]. However, since
these “single leader” models were often considered restrictive in terms of school
organizational performance [12, 53], new and more “distributed” leadership para-
digms were promoted, such as distributed leadership, system leadership, and trans-
formational leadership. These approaches argue for the need to actively engage
other school agents in the school leadership process [54, 55]. The expected benefits
of such models include both to create a shared pool of expertise on how to effec-
tively lead the school as a holistic organization, as well as exercise more granulated
reflection processes involving input from more individuals [54, 56]. For example,
teachers can be assigned with tasks of managing peer professional development
[57] and principals to collaborate with teachers for designing and/or evaluating stu-
dent learning [58].
Regarding school leadership competence frameworks, our analysis revealed that
K12 school leaders are expected to master and employ a diverse set of competences
in different educational contexts. Such competence areas include among others for-
mulating and orchestrating strategic plans (and vision) for the school, organize pro-
fessional development opportunities for the school staff, nurture fostering culture
within the school, communicate and collaborate with the school community, and
manage organizational tasks of the school organization [2]. This is consistent with
previous analyses indicating the expanding tasks that school leaders are expected to
perform in order to effectively meet their schools’ internal and external improve-
ment and accountability mandates [17]. Furthermore, an interesting finding was that
more recent competence frameworks tended to stress more explicitly competences
related to “data literacy” of school leaders. In particular, these frameworks (e.g.,
CF10–15) specifically outlined that leaders should be competent in exploiting edu-
cational data from different layers of their school to inform their strategic planning
and improvement. This trend can be linked to the emerging global trend for school
autonomy and accountability, which in turn has given rise to data-driven decision-
making approaches for school leaders [59].
Overall, the diversity and commonalities of the existing competence frameworks
have been captured in the “meta-framework” which was formulated as a critical
synthesis. This “meta-framework” aims to provide a summarizing outline of the
competences for contemporary school leaders and also organize them under a com-
mon classification schema. It is expected that this organization can facilitate under-
standing in the shifting landscape of school leadership and inform future work in
this field.
Acknowledgments The first and third authors’ contribution in this work has been partially
funded by the Greek General Secretariat for Research and Technology, under the Matching Funds
2014–2016 for the EU project “Inspiring Science: Large Scale Experimentation Scenarios to
Mainstream eLearning in Science, Mathematics and Technology in Primary and Secondary
Schools” (Project Number: 325123). The third author’s contribution in this work is part of Curtin’s
contribution to the “Open Schools for Open Society” Project, under the European Commission’s
Horizon 2020 SwafS-15-2016 Program (Project Number: 741572). This document reflects the
1 School Leadership: An Analysis of Competence Frameworks 23
views only of the authors, and it does not represent the opinion of the Greek General Research
Secretariat, the European Commission, or Curtin University. The Greek General Research
Secretariat, the European Commission, and Curtin University cannot be held responsible for any
use that might be made of its content.
References
1. Bocconi, S., Kampylis, P., & Punie, Y. (2012). Innovating learning: Key elements for develop-
ing creative classrooms in Europe. European Commission Joint Research Center. Retrieved
from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC72278.pdf.
2. OECD. (2013). Leadership for 21st century learning. Educational Research and Innovation.
OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/leadershipfor21stcentu-
rylearning.htm.
3. Liou, Y., Grigg, J., & Halverson, R. (2014). Leadership and the design of data-driven profes-
sional networks in schools. Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 2(1), 29–73.
4. Sergis, S., & Sampson, D. (2016). School analytics: A framework for supporting systemic
school complexity leadership. In J. M. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, D. Sampson, & P. Isaias (Eds.),
Competencies, challenges and changes in teaching, learning and educational leadership in the
digital age (pp. 79–122). Cham: Springer.
5. Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in
Higher Education, 32(6), 693–710.
6. Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School
Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553–571.
7. Gumus, S., Bellibas, M. S., Esen, M., & Gumus, E. (2016). A systematic review of studies
on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216659296.
8. Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A., & Dennison, P. (2003). A review of leadership theory
and competency frameworks. Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter. Retrieved
from https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10036/17494.
9. Ingvarson, L., Anderson, M., Gronn, P., & Jackson, A. (2006). Standards for school leadership:
A critical review of the literature. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.
Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/teaching_standards/3/.
1 0. Tian, M., Risku, M., & Collin, K. (2016). A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002
to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 146–164.
1 1. Lewis, P., & Murphy, R. (2008). Effective school leadership. National College for School
Leadership. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/y7teap2o.
12. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school
leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. Department for Education and
Skills: National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/yd6wvobq.
13. Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
1 4. Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2003). School leadership: Concepts and evidence. Nottingham:
National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/y7cl8wjc.
15. Hauge, T. E., Norenes, S. O., & Vedøy, G. (2014). School leadership and educational change:
Tools and practices in shared school leadership development. Journal of Educational Change,
15(4), 357–376.
1 6. Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teach-
ing and learning. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/azcy2ww.
24 S. Sergis et al.
17. Sergis, S., & Sampson, D. G. (2016). Data driven decision making for school leadership: A
critical analysis of supporting systems. In R. Huang, Kinshuk, & J. K. Price (Eds.), ICT in
education in global context: Comparative reports of K-12 schools innovation (pp. 145–171).
Berlin: Springer.
1 8. European Commission. (2012). Supporting the teaching professions for better learning out-
comes. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/ndbjhbo.
1 9. European Commission. (2013). Supporting teacher competence development for better learn-
ing outcomes. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/CZJHsj.
2 0. Knapp, M. S., & Feldman, S. B. (2012). Managing the intersection of internal and external
accountability. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 666–694.
2 1. West, D. L., Peck, C. M., Reitzug, U. C., & Crane, E. A. (2014). Accountability, autonomy and
stress: Principal responses to superintendent change in a large US urban school district. School
Leadership & Management, 34(4), 372–391.
2 2. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1998). Handbook of instructional leadership: How really good princi-
pals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
2 3. MacBeath, J., & Dempster, N. (2009). Connecting leadership and learning principles for
practice. London: Routledge.
24. Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evi-
dence. School Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73–91.
2 5. National College for School Leadership (NCSL). (2005). Annual report and accounts 2004/05.
Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/14404/.
26. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.
International Journal of Educational Management, 13(6), 301–302.
2 7. Hoyle, E., & Wallace, M. (2007). Educational reform: An ironic perspective. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 35(1), 9–25.
28. Simkins, T. (2005). Leadership in education ‘What Works’ or ‘What Makes Sense’?
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(1), 9–26.
2 9. National College for School Leadership (NCSL). (2010). Inspiring leaders to improve chil-
dren’s lives—Executive heads Full report. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/yb5qqlac.
30. Woods, P. A. (2004). Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed leadership.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3–26.
3 1. Brighouse, T. (2004). A model of school leadership in challenging urban environments.
Nottingham: NCSL. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5276/.
3 2. Heck, R. H., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1996). School culture and performance: Testing the invari-
ance of an organizational model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(1), 76–95.
33. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. New York: Psychology
Press.
3 4. Hargreaves, D. H. (2011). Leading a self-improving school system. National College for
Teaching and Leadership. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/y9mwjnpd.
3 5. Levin, B. (2012). System-wide improvement in education. Education Policy Series, 13, 1–38.
36. Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership across the system. Insight, 61, 14–17.
37. Greany, T. (2015). System leadership and the self-improving school system: Current devel-
opments and the future policy landscape. In Proceedings of the ASCL Annual Conference
(pp. 1–35).
38. California School Leadership Academy. (2014). California professional standards for educa-
tional leaders. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/y8qfzadl.
3 9. Chicago Public Education Fund. (2008). School turnaround leaders: Competences for success.
Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/k3q2cqj.
40. Urban School Leadership Center. (2008). The school leadership model. Retrieved from http://
tinyurl.com/on95jeb.
4 1. ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). (2009). Standards for administra-
tors. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/yafp9pdev.
42. TLEC. (2010). Teacher leader model standards. Retrieved from h ttp://www.nea.org/
home/43946.htm
1 School Leadership: An Analysis of Competence Frameworks 25
4 3. National College for School Leadership (NCSL). (2011). National professional qualification
for headship competency framework. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/yc9zxucu.
4 4. NCWWI (National Child Welfare Workforce Institute). (2011). Leadership competency frame-
work. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/ycyuqm6e.
45. Schratz, M. (2014). The art and science of leading a school: Central5: A Central European
view on competencies for school leaders. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/y6twg8g4.
4 6. BCPVPA (British Columbia Principals’ & Vice-Principals’ Association). (2013). Leadership
standards for principals and vice-principals in British Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.
bcpvpa.bc.ca/downloads/pdf/Standardsfinal.pdf.
4 7. Denver Public Schools. (2017). School leadership framework. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.
com/ydxkejnm.
48. New York City Department of Education. (2013). School leadership competences. Retrieved
from http://tinyurl.com/ybxocxwx.
4 9. CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers). (2014). Interstate school leaders licensure
consortium standards. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/ly2t74q.
50. AITSL (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership). (2014). The Australian pro-
fessional standard for principals. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/yco8l3wb.
51. Leading Educators. (2015). Teacher leader competency framework. Retrieved from http://
www.leadingeducators.org/publications/.
52. Hendriks, M. A., & Scheerens, J. (2013). School leadership effects revisited: A review of
empirical studies guided by indirect-effect models. School Leadership & Management, 33(4),
373–394.
53. Oswald, M., & Engelbrecht, P. (2013). Leadership in disadvantaged primary schools: Two nar-
ratives of contrasting schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5),
620–639.
54. Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2012). Distributed leadership in action: Leading high-performing lead-
ership teams in English schools. School Leadership & Management, 32(1), 21–36.
55. Gurr, D., & Drysdale, L. (2013). Middle-level secondary school leaders. Journal of Educational
Administration, 51(1), 55–71.
5 6. Dimmock, C. (2012). Leadership, capacity building and school improvement: Concepts,
themes and impact. London: Routledge.
5 7. Gonzales, S., & Lambert, L. (2014). Teacher leadership in professional development schools:
Emerging conceptions, identities, and practices. Journal of School Leadership, 11(1), 6–24.
5 8. Copland, M. A., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Connecting leadership with learning: A framework
for reflection. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publishing.
59. Mandinach, E. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data driven decision making to
inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 71–85.
60. North Carolina State Board of Education. (2013). Standards for school executives. Retrieved
from http://tinyurl.com/y9jdtcdg.
Chapter 2
Putting Flipped Classroom into Practice:
A Comprehensive Review of Empirical
Research
Michail N. Giannakos, John Krogstie, and Demetrios Sampson
Abstract Recent technical and infrastructural developments posit flipped (or
inverted) classroom approaches ripe for exploration at all levels of formal educa-
tion. Flipped classroom approaches have students use technology to access lectures
and other instructional-oriented resources outside the classroom, in order to engage
them in active learning during in-class time. Scholars and educators have reported
a variety of outcomes of a flipped approach to teaching and learning; however, the
lack of a summary from these empirical studies prevents stakeholders from having
a clear view of the benefits and challenges of this teaching strategy. The purpose of
this chapter is to provide a review of the flipped classroom approach in order to
summarize the findings and guide future studies. Thirty-seven peer-reviewed arti-
cles were collected from a systematic literature search and analyzed based on a
categorization of their main elements. The results of this survey show the direction
of flipped classroom research during recent years and the most common technolo-
gies, subject domains, evaluation methods, and pedagogical designs; in addition,
our study summarizes the benefits and challenges of adopting a flipped approach in
the classroom. Suggestions for future research include: describing in detail the
flipped approach, performing controlled experiments, and triangulating data from
diverse sources. These future research efforts will allow us to better indicate which
aspects and ingredients of a flipped classroom work better and under which circum-
stances and student groups. The findings will ultimately allow us to form best prac-
tices and a unified framework for guiding/assisting educators who want to adopt
this teaching style.
M. N. Giannakos (*) · J. Krogstie 27
Department of Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
D. Sampson
Department of Digital Systems, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece
School of Education, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
D. Sampson et al. (eds.), Digital Technologies: Sustainable Innovations for
Improving Teaching and Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73417-0_2
28 M. N. Giannakos et al.
2.1 I ntroduction
The most common teaching approach used in higher education classes is the tradi-
tional lecture-based approach, which typically places students in a passive role with
students retaining isolated pieces of information that can later be forgotten. Over the
last few decades, teachers and tutors attempt to move away from the traditional
lecture approach by increasing the use of technology as a way to extend and enhance
students’ learning experiences. One strategy recently adopted is the flipped (or
inverted) classroom approach, where students use technology to access lectures and
other instructional-oriented resources outside the classroom, leaving the in-class
time to engage in active learning through problem-based learning and practice
activities [1, 2].
The flipped classroom is a specific type of blended-learning design that restruc-
tures the traditional lesson planning [3]. Recent developments in open education
and video lectures have led to the wider take up of the flipped classroom approach.
Since this specific type of blended-learning classroom can utilize technology, such
as video and other forms of multimedia, to move lectures outside the classroom,
students and teachers have time for active learning activities in the classroom [4].
The flipped classroom has been used in a number of education studies [4], particu-
larly in higher education, with very encouraging results [5, 6].
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of research on the flipped
classroom approach in order to summarize the findings, guide future studies,
and identify most common technologies, subject domains, evaluation methods,
and pedagogical designs applied in flipped classroom research. This study can
provide a springboard for other scholars and practitioners to examine flipped
classroom approaches by taking into consideration the prior and ongoing
research efforts. Key areas covered in the current review include the history and
growth of flipped class, types of technology used, previous literature reviews,
benefits and challenges of flipped class, methodological concerns, and sugges-
tions for future research. To guide our research, we posed the following initial
research questions:
1. What are the most common technologies used in the flipped classroom?
2 . Which are the most common subject areas to implement a flipped class?
3 . What are the main measures used to evaluate flipped classroom experiences?
4 . What are the main benefits and challenges known about frameworks used to
design and implement flipped classroom?
In addition to producing substantive findings regarding the flipped classroom
approach, the review also aims to identify potential research gaps as well as make
suggestions for future research. Future research efforts will allow us to better indi-
cate which aspects and ingredients of a flipped classroom work better and under
which circumstances and student groups.
2 Putting Flipped Classroom into Practice… 29
2.2 H istory and Growth of Flipped Classroom
The flipped (or inverted) classroom approach was coined in 2000 [3], though rele-
vant research in the area remained limited until the last couple of years. It can be
argued that the key factor that increased stakeholders’ interest and postulated the
take up of flipped classroom approach was recent developments in open education
and technologies. To date, advanced video lecture repository systems have seen
enormous growth (e.g., Khan Academy, ITunes U), with social software tools
increasing the possibilities for enhancing their learning capacity. In addition, the
widespread adoption of many different video-based learning platforms from all the
prominent universities around the world posit this hybrid teaching method ripe for
exploration and increase stakeholders’ interest.
In 2000, Lage et al. proposed creating an inverted classroom for accommodating
many different student learning styles. Afterwards, many other researchers have
used the flipped classroom approach deploying different technologies and peda-
gogical strategies [4]. In the last few years, a substantial body of research has been
conducted and published. In several studies, very positive results are reported
regarding better learning outcomes as well as students’ attitudes towards this teach-
ing approach [7, 8]. However, at the same time, studies report that students dislike
video lectures and claimed that recorded lectures are not appropriate for more dif-
ficult course material and concepts [5, 9]. Overall, several studies have been con-
ducted, using different pedagogical designs and technologies, in different subject
areas and levels of education, resulting in an important body of knowledge.
2.2.1 Definition of the Flipped Classroom
Although flipped classroom is not a new notion, there is a tremendous discussion
around this which has gained prominence worldwide. The 2014 Horizon Report1
claims that the “flipped classroom” will see widespread adoption during the next
years, because of how it rearranges face-to-face instruction for teachers and stu-
dents, creating a more efficient and enriching use of class time. During the last
years, flipped classroom has been relaunched as an exciting new topic in educa-
tional research, and as we can see from Fig. 2.1, the term flipped classroom has
indeed gained prominence worldwide, especially after 2012.
Although flipped classroom has indeed seen widespread adoption during the last
years, sometimes we face that there is a lack of consensus on what exactly the flipped
classroom is, and there is also a limited amount of scholarly research on its effective-
ness [4]. The initial and quite simple definition of the flipped classroom is given by
Lage et al. [3]. “Inverting the classroom means that events that have traditionally
taken place inside the classroom now take place outside the classroom and vice
1 http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/2014-horizon-report.
30 M. N. Giannakos et al.
Fig. 2.1 Interest over time of the “flipped classroom” term, based on Google Trends
Fig. 2.2 The flipped classroom approach
versa” (p. 32). This definition portraits the rationale of flipped classroom; however, it
implies that the flipped classroom merely represents a reordering of at-class and at-
home activities. In practice, flipped classroom is an educational technique that con-
sists of two parts: (1) active learning activity inside the classroom, most of the times
in groups focusing on critical knowledge and (2) well-defined self-r egulated learning
outside the classroom assisted by technology and focusing on fundamental knowl-
edge. A graphic representation of this definition is shown in Fig. 2.2.
Although the initial definition is still valid, today’s advanced learning technologies
and twenty-first century expected competencies and lifelong learning posit flipped
classroom ripe for exploration and further advancement. There is a need for stronger
evidence-based knowledge in students’ learning outcomes as well as e xploration of the
key elements to design successful flipped classroom-based learning experiences.
2 Putting Flipped Classroom into Practice… 31
2.2.2 Previous Literature Reviews
Previous literature reviews have been conducted 2012/2013 where most of the
empirical studies were in early stages [4, 10]. In addition, those reviews were focus-
ing exclusively on specific subject domains and educational contexts, i.e., engineer-
ing education [4]. This review is unique since it collects and analyzes the
developments from the recent empirical flipped classroom research; as well as
investigates flipped classroom through the lens of the most common technologies,
subjects, evaluation methods and pedagogical designs. In addition, by analyzing
over 37 peer-reviewed articles, we offer a systematic analysis of both benefits and
drawbacks, and identify opportunities to improve future research.
2.3 M ethodology
In order to guarantee the rigor as well as the transparency of the process, and enable
potential replication of the search strategy and last but not least increase the reli-
ability of the findings. We draw from the established method of systematic review
[11, 12]. Hence, we undertook the review in distinct stages: posing the initial guid-
ing research questions, identifying relevant studies, study selection (based on inclu-
sion and exclusion criteria), categorizing the data, and reporting the results.
2.3.1 Articles Collection
Several procedures were followed to ensure high quality review of the literature of
flipped classroom approaches. A comprehensive search of peer-reviewed journal
and conference articles was conducted through January–February 2015, (short
papers, posters, and reports were excluded), based on a wide range of key terms
including: Flipped classroom, flip the classroom, flipped class, flipping, inverting,
reversing, inverted classroom, and derivatives of these terms. A wide variety of
databases and meta-databases were searched, including the ACM Digital Library,
IEEE Xplore, AACE Digital Library, Academic Search Premiere, EBSCOhost,
ERIC and Scholars Portal Journals. Additionally, the reference section of each arti-
cle found was searched in order to find additional articles (known as the snowball-
ing technique). Moreover, key learning technology journals were searched
independently and included the following publications: Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, British Journal of Educational Technology, Computers
and Education, Computers in Human Behavior, Educational Technology & Society,
Educational Technology Research and Development, Interdisciplinary Journal of
E-Learning and Learning Objects, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning and
Journal of Educational Computing Research. This process was conducted
32 M. N. Giannakos et al.
Problem statement
1. Is the paper based on empirical research?
2. Are the research objectives/questions clearly stated?
Methodology
3. Is there an adequate description of the research design?
4. Are the data collection & measures adequately described?
5. Is the data analysis used in the study adequately described?
Findings
6. Is there a clear statement of findings?
7. Are the findings precise and adequately described?
8. Is the study of value for research or practice?
Fig. 2.3 Quality assessment checklist
independently by two experts, an educational technologies researcher and a research
librarian. After this process, the two researchers compared their results and solved
any discrepancies.
The following quality assessment was followed to evaluate the relative strength
of research rigor as well as the empirical evidences reported. We devised a number
of quality assessment questions to assess the rigorousness, credibility, and relevance
of the identified studies, these criteria were informed by those proposed for the
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)2 (in particular, those for assessing the
quality of qualitative research) (Fig. 2.3). The search and quality assessment process
uncovered 37 peer-reviewed articles (Fig. 2.3).
2.3.2 A nalysis
During the analysis stage data was extracted from each of the 37 studies (Table 2.1)
according to the following elements: educational level of the sample, subject area,
methodology type (qualitative, quantitative, mixed), measure type (e.g., Attitudinal,
Learning Performance, Attendance), instruments used (e.g., Surveys, Tests,
Interviews), sample size, technology used, experiment design (e.g., between groups,
within groups), and whether the students’ worked collaboratively or not.
2 Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Systematic Review Checklist: http://media.wix.
com/ugd/dded87_a02ff2e3445f4952992d5a96ca562576.pdf.
Table 2.1 Identified published studies of the flipped classroom 2 Putting Flipped Classroom into Practice…
Study Educ. level Subject area Method type Measure type Instruments Sample size Tech. used Exper. design Collab. learn.
[8] UG Bio Mixed Atte, Atti Per SR, OEQ, LPT 400UG-30GR VL, AR BT Yes
[13] Mixed Comp. Archit. Mixed Per, Acti SR, LPT, OBS 8UG-44GR VL BT Yes
[14] UG CS0 Mixed Atti SR, OBS 26 VL Non Yes
[15] UG ENG Quant Atti SR 89 VL Non No
[16] Mixed Medicine Quant Per, Atti SR, LPT 71 VL BT & WT No
[7] UG ICT Quant Per, Atti SR, LPT 301 VL, Simul BT & WT No
[17] UG Physics Mixed Atte, Atti, Per SR, LPT, OEQ 200 AR WT No
[18] UG Digital ENG Mixed Atti SR, FG, OBS 30 Simul WT No
[9] UG Statistics Mixed Atti FN, INT, SR, FG 50 ITS BT No
[19] UG ENG Quant Atte, Atti LPT, SR 63 AR WT Yes
[20] UG Progr. & PS Mixed Per, Atti SR, OEQ 35 AR, VL Non Yes
[6] UG ENG Quant Per, Atti SR, LPT 20 VL BT Yes
[21] Mixed Soft. ENG Mixed Per SR, INT, LPT 106 VL BT Yes
[22] UG Progr. Quall Atti SR – VL, Simul Non No
[23] UG IS Quant Atti SR 50 VL BT No
[5] UG Soft. ENG Quant Atti – 80 VL WT Yes
[24] UG Web Design Quant Atti, Per SR, OEQ 50 VL, Non Yes
[25] GR - Quant Per, Atti, BM EEG, SR, LPT 48 VL BT No
[26] UG CS1 Quant Atte, Per, Atti SR, LPT 351 VL WT Yes
[27] UG PS, CS Mixed Atti, SR, LPT, INT 531 VL BT Yes
[28] UG CS0 Mixed Atti SR, OEQ 49 VL Non Yes
[29] UG HCI Quant Atti, Per, LPT, 46 VL BT Yes
[30] UG Statistics Quant Atti, Per LPT, OEQ, SR, – – BT Yes
[31] GR Medicine Quant Per, Skills LPT, SR 399 – BT Yes
[32] UG History Quall – OEQ 36 VL Non Non
(continued) 33
Table 2.1 (continued) 34 M. N. Giannakos et al.
Study Educ. level Subject area Method type Measure type Instruments Sample size Tech. used Exper. design Collab. learn.
Quant LPT, SR 55
[33] UG Math Mixed Per, Atti SR, OEQ 189 VL BT Yes
[3] UG Ec/mics Mixed Per LPT, FG, SR 60 VL Non Yes
[34] UG Math Mixed Per, Atti SR, FG, INT 80 VL BT Yes
[35] – Sociology Quant Atti LPT, SR 213 VL Non No
[36] UG History Mixed Per, Atti LPT, SR 125 – WT No
[37] UG IT Per, Atti SR 53 VL WT No
[38] UG Math Quant Atti SR 87 VL WT Yes
[39] UG IT Mixed Atti 115 VL BT Yes
[40] UG ENG, HUM Quant Atti Fail Rate 23 VL, LMS BT, WT Yes
[41] K-12 General Quant Atti LPT VL Non No
[42] UG Management Quant Per SR 39 VL WT No
[43] Residency Emergen. Atti VL WT No
Medicine
UG Undergraduate, GR Graduate, ENG Engineering, PS Problem Solving, Atte Attendance, Atti Attitudes, Per Learning Performance, BM Biometrics, SR
Surveys, OEQ Open-Ended Questions, LPT Learning Performance Tests, OBS Observations, INT Interviews, FG Focus Groups, FN Field Notes, VL Video
Lectures, AR Animated Readings, BT Between Group, WT Within Group
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Home
Explore
Demetrios Sampson,Dirk Ifenthaler,J. Michael Spector,Pedro Isaías (eds.) - Digital Technologies_ Sustainable Innovations for Improving Teaching and Learning-Springer International Publishing (201
View in Fullscreen
Demetrios Sampson,Dirk Ifenthaler,J. Michael Spector,Pedro Isaías (eds.) - Digital Technologies_ Sustainable Innovations for Improving Teaching and Learning-Springer International Publishing (201
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search