Abstract
This paper aims to explore the effect of digital technology on principals’ leadership. As digital technologies become increasingly integrated into educational practice, understanding how school leaders adopt and accept these technologies is important. This is because principals are central figures in school governance, and their leadership practices influence the availability of digital resources, teachers’ motivation, and technology integration within schools. In this paper, we identify the types of technologies that principals commonly use, describe the challenges that they encounter in adopting, and provide reasonable suggestions. Specifically, by drawing on the PRISMA searching strategy, we searched databases such as Web of Science and Scopus and included 29 peer-reviewed articles. Analysisreveals that principals have integrated different digital technologies into their leadership practices, such as digital devices, school information management systems, and communication platforms. These technologies can support teachers’ instructional practices, assist principals in managing administrative tasks, and facilitate collaboration between teachers and principals. However, despite these technologies being adopted, principals still face several challenges. For instance, some principals might lack adequate digital infrastructure and digital competence. These challenges might constrain their capacity to integrate digital technologies into their leadership practices effectively. Overall, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of educational leadership in the digital era.
Introduction
In recent years, emerging digital technologies (e.g., humanoid robots) have been integrated into school education practices in different countries (Belpaeme et al., 2018; Sievers, 2025). These technologies not only influence teachers' teaching and students' learning approaches but also influence principals' leadership practices (Afshari et al., 2008; Arokiasamy et al., 2015). According to Northouse (1999), this article conceptualizes principal leadership as the process through which principals influence their staff to achieve educational objectives. This conceptualization can help us to understand how digital technologies influence principals' leadership practices in school contexts.
Existing literature suggests that the influences of digital technologies extend across multiple aspects of principals' leadership practices, including communication (Ibrahim et al., 2018), decision-making (Akbaba-Altun, 2006), and information management (Zain et al., 2004). For example, Mogas et al. (2022) noted that digital technologies can facilitate teachers' instructional practices and enhance principals' administrative efficiency. Ibrahim et al. (2018) also pointed that the use of mobile technology applications has facilitated principals' communication with other stakeholders.
However, although researchers acknowledged the role of digital technologies in principals' leadership practices, they have rarely explored how these digital technologies function. The study by Zain et al. (2004) is an example of this phenomenon. Zain et al. (2004) noted that principals can stay informed about how various resources are used within their schools through digital tools, thereby enabling more effective allocation of school resources. However, this study did not provide details on the specific digital tools involved or how they functioned. In addition, Akomo et al. (2015) also found that principals can utilize digital tools for timetabling and financial management, however, the specific digital tools and the methods through which these tools are implemented are not specified.
In addition, integrating digital technologies into schools may also face some challenges. For example, Hodgkinson-Williams et al. (2007) reported that the shortage of digital devices in many schools hindered principals' efforts to integrate digital technologies into school operations. Similarly, Karousiou (2025) noted that the highly centralized education system in Cyprus may restrict principals' autonomy. Although these studies have identified a range of challenges faced by principals, they rarely propose solutions to address such challenges. This limitation is evident in the study by Karousiou (2025).
Overall, by reading the literature cited above, we found that although researchers are beginning to focus on the impact of digital technologies on principals' leadership practices, these studies tend to emphasize the identification of problems and challenges rather than the proposal of solutions (
Wollscheid et al., 2025). In this context, the present paper aims to respond to
Krein's(
2025) call for further exploration of the impact of digital technologies on principals' leadership practices, and to propose solutions that we believe might facilitate the integration of digital technologies into leadership. To achieve the research objective, this paper is guided by following questions:
What digital technologies do principals usually use in their leadership practices?
What are the challenges of integrating digital technologies into principals’ leadership practices?
By answering these questions, we can better understand how principals use digital technologies in their leadership practices and the factors influencing such use. With this understanding, principals can reflect on their leadership practices that are often taken for granted in the process of integrating digital technologies, and researchers may gain deeper insights into the conditions shaping principals' leadership in the digital context.
Method
Types/sources of data
Search strategy
The article selection process was drawn on the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) search strategy (Page et al., 2021). We searched databases such as Scopus and Web of Science on March 15th, 2025, and included peer-reviewed articles on digital technologies and educational leadership. Literature search was not limited to a specific time span. The inclusion criteria was guided by the conceptual relevance with research questions. For educational leadership, we included “principal leadership”, “educational leadership”, following Gaol's review published in Educational Management Administration & Leadership, one of the most high-impact journals in this field (Gaol, 2023). For emerging technologies, we included “emerging technologies”, “artificial intelligence”, following the searching strategy of Sembey et al. (2024). For educational leaders, we included principals, school leaders, school managers in the search. In short, by using search terms that have been validated in publications from high-impact journals, this made us more confident that we would capture appropriate citations within the searches that we did conduct.
We applied the fields title/abstract in the search. The full details are available in Figure 1. Our initial search identified a total of 146 articles in Web of Science and 324 in Scopus, which were imported into Zotero reference management software. Of these 470 articles, 96 were identified as duplicates, leaving a total of 374 for screening and eligibility stages.
Figure 1
Inclusion and exclusion
We applied a series of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles were included if they were: (i) written in English; (ii) published in a peer-reviewed journal; (iii) focus on emerging technologies and (iv) research participants included school leaders or participated in educational leadership practices. They are excluded if the research design is literature review, theoretical or conceptual, and so on. Of the 376 records screened, we excluded 142 because they were book chapters and conference papers, and 13 were not in English, leaving a total of 217 articles for retrieval. We were able to find the full text of all articles, resulting in 217 articles for eligibility. At eligibility, upon reviewing the full text, we excluded another 115 articles that did not relate to emerging technologies and educational leadership. We also further excluded 55 articles because the populations in these studies did not include school leaders interested in this study. We also identified additional 1 article by scanning the reference list and then using Google Scholar. This left a final 29 articles in the final review sample for data analysis and quality assessment (see Supplementary Appendix Table A1).
Extraction and analysis
We extracted the main study parameters into a Microsoft Excel literature grid consisting of multiple tabs (see Supplementary Material 1). Data included author(s)/year of publication, country of study, study design, study participants, data collection approach, analysis methods, and findings.
Results
Research Question1: what digital technologies do principals usually use in their leadership practices?
Digital devices
In this section, digital devices refer to the hardware component of schools' digital infrastructure (Kirinić et al., 2023). These devices commonly include computers (Vlachopoulos and Pitsiavas, 2016), printers, TVs, scanners, projectors (Akbaba-Altun, 2006), and interactive whiteboards (Abdul Razzak, 2015). Although more advanced devices such as AR and VR equipment and humanoid robots have also gradually appeared in schools, their application remains limited. Principals tend to rely on basic digital devices, such as computers, in their own leadership practices, while supporting teachers to integrate more-advanced devices into teaching practices (Keane et al., 2020; Mogas et al., 2022). This phenomenon indicates that principals may primarily use more advanced digital devices to support teaching-related leadership functions, the effectiveness of which depends heavily on teachers' classroom practices (Keane et al., 2020; Mogas et al., 2022).
With the support of principals, humanoid robots have been effectively utilized in teaching practice across multiple schools in South Australia (Keane et al., 2020). For instance, students can design robot behaviors in NAO's graphical programming environment by combining appropriate action and voice modules (SoftBank, 2025). Through repeated debugging and collaborative efforts, students can make robots to perform the behaviors designed by them (SoftBank, 2025). This implies the utilization of humanoid robots in teaching not only support the development of students' capabilities but also transforms the traditional teacher-centered instructional model towards a more inquiry-based approach, making learning more engaging (Keane et al., 2020). Notably, these robots are inherently designed to support teaching and learning (SoftBank Robotics, 2026). Although these robots can capture students' learning data through multimodal sensors, these data are often legally protected and inaccessible to principals (Information Commissioners Office, 2018). This suggests that, beyond supporting teaching and learning, the usefulness of humanoid robots in principals' leadership practices may be inherently limited.
School management information systems (SMIS)
In this section, school management information systems (SMIS) are conceptualized as digital tools that are designed to support school-level instructional and administrative tasks (Demir, 2006; Hauge and Norenes, 2015). According to the existing literature, digital tools are often described in functional and ambiguous ways, without clear identification of specific systems or applications (Vlachopoulos and Pitsiavas, 2016; Yalley, 2022). In practice, digital tools are commonly used by principals to support teachers' instructional work (Hauge and Norenes, 2015), track student attendance (Abdul Razzak, 2015), and support financial administration (Hoque et al., 2012). For instance, principals can use digital tools to check classroom availability online (Mogas et al., 2022). Such functions can help principals to enhance the coordination efficiency within schools and reduce the need for repeated communication among teaching staff (Barzola et al., 2024).
Existing studies indicate that principals’ use of SMIS primarily centers on daily administrative tasks (Mogas et al., 2022; Vlachopoulos and Pitsiavas, 2016). For instance, Vlachopoulos and Pitsiavas (2016) and Abdul Razzak (2015) reported that principals use SMIS to track student attendance. This practice allows principals not only to evaluate student attendance patterns but also to support routine decision-making. Specifically, student attendance records can enable principals to promptly identify students who are chronically absent at an early stage (Kearney, 2008). In this case, principals can implement timely interventions that may help to reduce school dropout rates (Kearney, 2008).
In addition, attendance data allows principals to examine whether absences are concentrated in particular subjects (Gottfried, 2014). This information helps principals determine whether targeted intervention in specific teachers' instructional practices is necessary (Kearney, 2008). In general, SMIS can support principals to make evidence-based decisions. This support helps principals reduce the risk of misjudgments based solely on personal experience and observation (Gottfried, 2014; Kearney, 2008).
Digital collaboration platforms
Digital collaboration platforms primarily support principals to communicate and collaborate with teachers (Kafa, 2025). These platforms are not typically designed for schoolwork or educational purposes, but they have been utilized extensively in principals' leadership practices, such as Viber, Microsoft Teams, Dropbox (Kafa, 2025), and Wiki platforms (Hauge and Norenes, 2015). These platforms have been used by principals in online communication and meetings (Marrone et al., 2025), collaborative document editing (Hauge and Norenes, 2015), resource sharing (Vlachopoulos and Pitsiavas, 2016). Digital collaboration platforms have significantly enhanced the flexibility of principals' leadership (Tulowitzki et al., 2022; Zain et al., 2004). For instance, principals can receive files shared by teachers and hold meeting at home, rather than having to meet teachers in person and book meeting rooms in advance to arrange time (Ibrahim et al., 2018). Nonetheless, principals' use of digital collaboration platforms may remain largely confined to most basic, straightforward functions and routine tasks (Tulowitzki et al., 2022).
Principals' use of digital collaboration platforms may be guided by convenience and ease of use (Kafa, 2025). For example, all included studies that mentioned principals' utilization of Microsoft Teams noted only its some basic functions, such as real-time communication, resource sharing and online meeting (Demeshkant et al., 2022; Kafa, 2025). Some of the more advanced features of Microsoft Teams have not been noted in the literature, such as its' Teams module. Within the Teams module, principals can establish dedicated channels for teachers across different grades, subjects and roles in schools (Microsoft, 2024). Principals can use Microsoft Teams to support instructional planning, facilitate teacher collaboration, and analyze student performance (Ilag et al., 2023). Principals can also monitor task progress within different teams, which may enable them to provide timely support to teachers (Ilag et al., 2023).
Research question 2: what are the challenges of integrating digital technologies into principals' leadership practices?
Challenges related to digital infrastructure
One major challenge that principals face in leadership practices is the inability to effectively support teachers' use of technology in teaching (Akbaba-Altun, 2006). This challenge is associated with inadequate digital infrastructure within schools (Mogas et al., 2022), which is primarily manifested in the insufficient digital devices, unstable network connectivity, and equipment malfunction and aging (Abdul Razzak, 2015; Karousiou, 2025). For instance, when teachers employ digital technologies in teaching, they may utilize advanced digital teaching software, which is sometimes incompatible with schools' outdated devices (Yalley, 2022). As a result, teachers may be unable to fully implement their desired teaching practices, thereby dampening their enthusiasm for using digital technologies (Yalley, 2022). In this sense, inadequate digital infrastructure may limit principals’ ability to provide a supportive working environment for the effective integration of digital technologies into teaching.
To address the challenge of inadequate digital infrastructure in schools, principals can adopt a range of strategies. For instance, they may seek external donations, including financial support from government bodies (Akomo et al., 2015), non-government organizations, enterprises, and universities (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2007). A typical example is the World Computer Exchange program run by a charitable organization. According to the available evidence, the organization has donated 42,875 computers to 54 developing countries, thereby allowing approximately 5,441,823 students to access computer technology in the classroom (World Computer Exchange, 2024). Hodgkinson-Williams et al. (2007, p. 57) also reported that some under-resourced schools in the South Africa “rely on the goodwill of Rhodes University, independent schools, and local business to donate computers to them”. Overall, existing evidence indicates that diversifying funding sources may help alleviate challenges related to inadequate digital infrastructure. Such funds can also be used for purpose including, but not limited to, device maintenance, upgrades, and staff salaries (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2007).
Challenges related to principals' digital competence
Some studies show that principals with low levels of digital competence may be unable to use the advanced functions of SMIS to handle routine administrative tasks (Mogas et al., 2022; Vlachopoulos and Pitsiavas, 2016). This phenomenon may further undermine the effectiveness of SMIS in supporting principals' leadership practices. In addition, principals with low levels of digital competence may also face difficulties in prompting successful digital transformation in schools (Karousiou, 2025). For instance, Karousiou (2025) found that principals with insufficient digital competence may struggle to develop schools' digital development plans and integrate digital technologies into schools' long-term vision. In general, these findings suggest that principals with insufficient digital competence may be unable to fully leverage digital technologies to support leadership practices.
To improve principals' digital competence levels, researchers have proposed several measures. For instance, principals can learn from others with higher levels of digital competence (Bowers and Krumm, 2021; Hadjithoma-Garstka, 2011). In addition, principals can utilize resources that non-governmental organizations provide to enhance their competence (Hadjithoma-Garstka, 2011; Karousiou, 2025). For example, a non-governmental organization called Digital Promise launched the League of Innovative Schools in 2011 (Digital Promise, n.d.). This initiative provides principals with digital competence training, facilitates professional exchange with peers, and supports their online self-directed learning (Digital Promise, n.d.). Although researchers have recognized the importance of principals’ competence development, they have not specified which competencies are involved and how these competencies can be cultivated.
Challenges related to policy framework
In addition to principals' insufficient digital competence, the lack of clarity of policy documents may also constrain the effective use of digital technologies in principals' leadership practices to some extent (Kafa, 2025; Yalley, 2022). Take the Digital Skills-National Action Plan 2021–2025 (DSNAP 2021–2025) of Cyprus as an example (Karousiou, 2025).
The vision of this Action Plan is to “create a digitally mature society across the whole spectrum of business and social fabric” (Deputy Ministry of Research, 2021, p. 12). This policy document includes the following statement: “training teachers to integrate modern digital media into teaching” (Deputy Ministry of Research, 2021, p.7). However, it does not elaborate on how the training should be conducted, nor did it clearly define the role of principals within the training program (Deputy Ministry of Research, 2021). In such circumstances, principals may experience confusion about what is expected of them and how the training should be organized (Karousiou, 2025). That is, when policy documents lack clarity, principals may struggle to determine what actions should be taken. Several studies have indicated that this confusion may weaken the effectiveness of digital technologies in leadership practices, and even leading to the misuse and inefficient use of technologies (Kafa, 2025; Karousiou, 2025).
To address the challenges related to policy framework, policy-related recommendations tend to follow two main directions. On the one hand, researchers believe that the robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should be established to help ensure the sustainability and success of digital transformation efforts (Karousiou, 2025; Yalley, 2022). On the other hand, policy support should extend beyond the issuance of policy documents, highlighting the importance of sustained forms of support, such as ongoing professional development opportunities (Yalley, 2022), feedback channels (Karousiou, 2025), and advisory services (Kafa, 2025). Although many researchers have recognized policy-related challenges and proposed corresponding suggestions, these suggestions tend to remain relatively general, and provide limited practical guidance for practical implementation.
This is a short text to acknowledge the contributions of specific colleagues, institutions, or agencies that aided the efforts of the authors.
Statements
Author contributions
WQ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. A-AM: Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2026.1801332/full#supplementary-material
References
1
Abdul RazzakN. (2015). Challenges facing school leadership in promoting ICT integration in instruction in the public schools of Bahrain. Educ. Inf. Technol.20 (2), 303–318. 10.1007/s10639-013-9283-7
2
AfshariM.BakarK. A.LuanW. S.SamahB. A.FooiF. S. (2008). School leadership and information communication technology. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol.-TOJET7 (4), 82–91.
3
Akbaba-AltunS. (2006). Complexity of integrating computer technologies into education in Turkey. J. Educ. Technol. Soc.9 (1), 176–187.
4
AkomoO. D.AjowiJ. O.BosireJ. N. (2015). Factors limiting the usage of ICT in the delivery of management services in public secondary schools in Siaya county. Int. J. Educ. Res.6 (2), 554–562. 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n2p554
5
ArokiasamyA. R. A.bin AbdullahA. G. K.IsmailA. (2015). Correlation between cultural perceptions, leadership style and ICT usage by school principals in Malaysia. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci.176, 319–332. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.478
6
BarzolaM. M.VeraA. Y.IglesiasS. G.LlanosA. E. (2024). Digital transformation in educational management: enhancing pedagogical and administrative practices with microsoft teams and google classroom. Int. Conf. Innov. Res.140–148. 10.1007/978-3-031-99339-8_11
7
BelpaemeT.KennedyJ.RamachandranA.ScassellatiB.TanakaF. (2018). Social robots for education: a review. Sci. Robot.3 (21), eaat5954. 10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954
8
BowersA. J.KrummA. E. (2021). Supporting the initial work of evidence-based improvement cycles through a data-intensive partnership. Inf. Learn. Sci.122 (9-10), 629–650. 10.1108/ils-09-2020-0212
9
DemeshkantN.SchultheisK.HieblP. (2022). School sustainability and school leadership during crisis remote education: polish and German experience. Comput. Sch.39 (2), 120–136. 10.1080/07380569.2022.2071221
10
DemirK. (2006). School management information systems in primary schools. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol.5 (2), 32–45.
11
Deputy Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digital Policy. (2021). Digital skills: National action plan 2021–2025. Available online at:https://www.gov.cy/dmrid/en/documents/digital-skills-national-action-plan-2021-2025/ (Accessed December 29, 2025).
12
Digital Promise. (n.d.). League of Innovative Schools. Digital Promise. Available online at:https://digitalpromise.org/initiative/league-of-innovative-schools/ (Accessed December 29, 2025).
13
GaolL. T. N. (2023). School leadership in Indonesia: a systematic literature review. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh.51 (4), 831–848. 10.1177/17411432211010811
14
GottfriedM. A. (2014). Chronic absenteeism and its effects on students’ academic and socioemotional outcomes. J. Educ. Stud. Placed Risk19 (2), 53–75. 10.1080/10824669.2014.962696
15
Hadjithoma-GarstkaC. (2011). The role of the principal’s leadership style in the implementation of ICT policy. Br. J. Educ. Technol.42 (2), 311–326. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01014.x
16
HaugeT. E.NorenesS. O. (2015). Collaborative leadership development with ICT: experiences from three exemplary schools. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ.18 (3), 340–364. 10.1080/13603124.2014.963689
17
Hodgkinson-WilliamsC.SieborgerI.TerzoliA. (2007). Enabling and constraining ICT practice in secondary schools: case studies in South Africa. Int. J. Knowl. Learn.3 (2–3), 171–190. 10.1504/ijkl.2007.015551
18
HoqueK. E.Ab. SamadR. S.SirajS.ZiyadhA. (2012). The role of ICT in school management of Maldives. New Educ. Rev.27 (1), 270–282.
19
IbrahimM.NohC.YaakobM.YusofM. (2018). Mobile-mediating in leadership practices. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol.9 (7), 1413–1418. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
20
IlagB. N.TripathyD.IreddyV. (2023). Understanding Microsoft Teams Administration: Configure, Customize, and Manage the Teams Experience. Berkeley, CA: Apress.
21
Information Commissioner’s Office. (2018). UK GDPR guidance and resources. Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Available online at:https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/ (Accessed December 29, 2025).
22
KafaA. (2025). Exploring integration aspects of school leadership in the context of digitalization and artificial intelligence. Int. J. Educ. Manag.39 (8), 98–115. 10.1108/ijem-11-2024-0703
23
KarousiouC. (2025). Navigating challenges in school digital transformation: insights from school leaders in the republic of Cyprus. EMI. Educ. Media. Int.62 (1), 54–76. 10.1080/09523987.2025.2461324
24
KeaneT.BodenM.ChalmersC.WilliamsM. (2020). Effective principal leadership influencing technology innovation in the classroom. Educ. Inf. Technol.25 (6), 5321–5338. 10.1007/s10639-020-10217-0
25
KearneyC. A. (2008). School absenteeism and school refusal behavior in youth: a contemporary review. Clin. Psychol. Rev.28 (3), 451–471. 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.07.012
26
KirinićV.HrustekNŽMekovecR. (2023). E-schools project: a framework for digital competencies of school principals, with a focus on digital infrastructure. 2023 International Conference on Information Management (ICIM), 161–167. 10.1109/icim58774.2023.00021
27
Krein’sU. (2025). Exploring the transformative impact of technology on school leadership. affordances, practices, implications. Leadersh. Policy. Sch.24 (1), 90–102. 10.1080/15700763.2024.2440902
28
MarroneR.FowlerS.BathakurA.DawsonS.SiemensG.SinghC. (2025). Perceptions and perspectives of Australian school leaders on the integration of artificial intelligence in schools. Sch. Lead. Manag.45 (1), 30–52. 10.1080/13632434.2024.2425019
29
Microsoft. (2024). Microsoft Teams Overview. Microsoft Learn. Available online at:https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/teams-overview (Accessed December 29, 2025).
30
MogasJ.PalauR.FuentesM.CebriánG. (2022). Smart schools on the way: how school principals from catalonia approach the future of education within the fourth industrial revolution. Learn. Environ. Res.25 (3), 875–893. 10.1007/s10984-021-09398-3
31
NorthouseP. G. (1999). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.et al (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br. Med. J.372, n71, 10.31222/osf.io/v7gm2
33
SembeyR.HodaR.GrundyJ. (2024). Emerging technologies in higher education assessment and feedback practices: a systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw.211, 111988. 10.2139/ssrn.4328075
34
SieversT. (2025). A humanoid social robot as a teaching assistant in the classroom. arXiv [Preprint]. arXiv:2508.05646.
35
SoftBankR. (2025). Choregraphe [software]. Available online at:https://nao-wnlp.readthedocs.io/en/latest/choregraphe.html (Accessed December 29, 2025).
36
SoftBank Robotics. (2026). NAO Humanoid Robot. Available online at:https://us.softbankrobotics.com/nao (Accessed December 29, 2025).
37
TulowitzkiP.GerickJ.EickelmannB. (2022). The role of ICT for school leadership and management activities: an international comparison. Int. J. Educ. Manag.36 (2), 133–151. 10.1108/ijem-06-2021-0251
38
VlachopoulosD.PitsiavasD. (2016). The digital profile of primary school principals: achieving effective educational administration through ICT. Int. J. Educ. Organ. Leadersh.23 (3), 17–28. 10.18848/2329-1656/cgp/v23i03/17-28
39
WollscheidS.TømteC. E.EgebergG. C.KarlstrømH.FossumL. W. (2025). Research trends on digital school leadership over time: science mapping and content analysis. Educ. Inf. Technol.30 (1), 747–778. 10.1007/s10639-024-12909-3
40
World Computer Exchange. (2024). Get Computers. World Computer Exchange. Available online at:https://worldcomputerexchange.org/get-computers/ (Accessed December 29, 2025).
41
YalleyC. E. (2022). A tracer study on challenges affecting the use of ICT in pre-tertiary school administration in Ghana: administrators’ perspective. Cogent Educ.9 (1), 2062893. 10.1080/2331186x.2022.2062893
42
ZainM. Z.AtanH.IdrusR. M. (2004). The impact of information and communication technology (ICT) on the management practices of Malaysian smart schools. Int. J. Educ. Dev.24 (2), 201–211. 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2003.10.010
Summary
Keywords
emerging technologies, leadership, literature review, school digital transformation, school principals
Citation
Qu W and Mydin A-A (2026) A review of research on the challenges principals face in integrating digital technologies. Front. Educ. 11:1801332. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1801332
Received
01 February 2026
Revised
06 March 2026
Accepted
09 March 2026
Published
09 April 2026
Volume
11 - 2026
Edited by
Prakasha G. S., Christ University, India
Reviewed by
Ferry Doringin, Multimedia Nusantara University, Indonesia
Ahmad Yani T., Tanjungpura University, Indonesia
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Qu and Mydin.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Wenying Qu 18369895872ying@student.usm.my Al-Amin Mydin alamin@usm.my
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.