Leveraging Digital Learning Technologies to Drive Educational Administration Policies and Enhance Learning Quality in the Digital Age
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Education has changed as a result of society's rapid digital transformation, which has replaced traditional teaching paradigms with learner-centered, technology-driven settings. LMS platforms, data analytics tools, and AI technologies are essential components for increasing accessibility and participation while improving the caliber of instruction. To handle the efficient use of digital tools and to address concerns like digital equity, data privacy, and professional capacity, educational administration rules must change. In order to create educational administration policies that enhance learning quality in the digital age, this study explores strategic approaches for leveraging digital learning tools. Through their mutual reliance, the study looks at how administrative policy formulation and technology integration work together to promote student results.
Methodology: This study integrated case studies from global educational systems with theoretical frameworks like the Diffusion of Innovation Theory and the Technology Acceptance Model using qualitative literature research methodologies. The investigation looked at system-wide factors that affect the adoption and use of digital technologies, as well as their roles in policy execution, dissemination, and assessment.
Results: According to the research, digital technologies help make data-driven decisions and facilitate more inclusive and flexible policy implementation, which changes educational leadership. Uruguay, South Korea, and Finland's experiences show how digital tactics assist teacher development and curricular innovation while improving individualized learning. Despite the potential of digital education, challenges still exist in the form of inconsistent infrastructure development, opposition to change, and incomplete data governance regulations.
Conclusion: Educational outcomes can be significantly improved when educational systems have strong and flexible regulations to support the use of digital learning technology. To fulfill this promise, we need intentional infrastructure investment, continuous professional development, and cooperation between administrators, educators, and technologists in the establishment of policy. Innovation must be combined with just practices and moral values to ensure system stability in the future and build a digital education system that will last and benefit all students.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any article in the International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews is retained by the author(s) under the under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permission to use text, content, images, etc. of publication. Any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. But do not use it for commercial use or with the intent to benefit any business.
References
Aldholay, A. H., Isaac, O., Abdullah, Z., Abdulsalam, R., & Al-Shibami, A. H. (2018). The role of transformational leadership and technology acceptance model in predicting e-learning readiness: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17, 1–25.
Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. L. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04269517
Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a Theory of Online Learning. In The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). T. Anderson (Ed.). pp. 45-74. Athabasca University Press.
Bates, A. T. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Tony Bates Associates Ltd. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Bush, T. (2011). Theories of educational leadership and management (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Jossey-Bass.
Grech, A., & Camilleri, A. F. (2017). Blockchain in education. Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2760/60649
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632431003663214
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Ifenthaler, D., & Yau, J. Y. K. (2020). Utilising predictive learning analytics to support students' self-regulated learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3151–3170.
Kankaanranta, M., & Puhakka, E. (2008). The information society skills of young Finns—A research review. Finnish Journal of e-Learning, 1(3), 24–33.
Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson Education.
OECD. (2021). 21st-century readers: Developing literacy skills in a digital world. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2016). School leadership for learning: Insights from TALIS 2013. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264258341-en
Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., Baird, M. D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2015). Continued progress: Promising evidence on personalized learning. RAND Corporation.
Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Selwyn, N. (2012). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Trucano, M. (2016). Knowledge maps: ICTs in education. The World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/895711468764387983
UNESCO. (2018). ICT competency framework for teachers (Version 3). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265721
UNESCO. (2019). Leveraging information to improve education systems. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. https://uis.unesco.org
UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707
Van Thiel, S., & Leeuw, F. L. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(3), 267–281.
Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2015). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(5), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12137
