View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Leading the AI Transformation in Schools: It Starts with a Digital Mindset

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Leading the AI Transformation in Schools: It Starts with a Digital Mindset
Language: English
Authors: Marcus Pietsch (ORCID 0000-0002-9836-6793), Dana-Kristin Mah (ORCID 0009-0004-2106-2216)
Source: Educational Technology Research and Development. 2025 73(2):1043-1069.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Software, Technology Integration, Teaching Methods, Learning Processes, Instructional Leadership, Administrator Attitudes, Empathy, Perspective Taking, Leadership Styles, Foreign Countries, Educational Change
Geographic Terms: Germany
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-024-10439-w
ISSN: 1042-1629
1556-6501
Abstract: Rapid developments in artificial intelligence (AI) require dynamic adaptation in education to integrate new technologies timely and sustainably. In particular, the rise of generative AI requires leadership to implement it in a meaningful way for teaching and learning. School leaders have a special role to play in driving digital transformation. Based on a sample of German school leaders, this article explores how school leadership approaches and a digital mindset influence the implementation of AI in schools. Our findings provide initial and preliminary evidence that school leaders' digital mindsets, particularly proactive agility and empathy, understood as perspective taking, influence the implementation of AI in schools. Furthermore, the findings highlight the effectiveness of ambidextrous leadership in driving AI implementation. As a consequence, our study paves the way for future explorations of the evolving landscape of AI in education and highlights the need for adaptive, empathetic, and proactive leadership in the digital age.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1470860
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHlUmt67zjTORdolcqptTS8AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDD_Pb0vVfxK33u3uVAIBEICBm791r8dDe69PXRAHcr75SLC-AIaSLAqB0jEfeb3p3E4f2AEfkQuoqHCjRDsCgyyo8Qedp80BZJ6u6ZiAluS9SY9zjWudWhMdmrhCSk7VCt2tiT6IPUcWINAr5YxIzR1BeI9zq8pTrnXF-WRC0U_1GW7Yz31B6VH6_GrffHlmhkYslUTRgpWxUDoW6AB42v1U2wwvjLRdBWmaS_PE
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0185099442;etr01apr.25;2025May14.02:47;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0185099442-1">Leading the AI transformation in schools: it starts with a digital mindset </title> <p>Rapid developments in artificial intelligence (AI) require dynamic adaptation in education to integrate new technologies timely and sustainably. In particular, the rise of generative AI requires leadership to implement it in a meaningful way for teaching and learning. School leaders have a special role to play in driving digital transformation. Based on a sample of German school leaders, this article explores how school leadership approaches and a digital mindset influence the implementation of AI in schools. Our findings provide initial and preliminary evidence that school leaders' digital mindsets, particularly proactive agility and empathy, understood as perspective taking, influence the implementation of AI in schools. Furthermore, the findings highlight the effectiveness of ambidextrous leadership in driving AI implementation. As a consequence, our study paves the way for future explorations of the evolving landscape of AI in education and highlights the need for adaptive, empathetic, and proactive leadership in the digital age.</p> <p>Keywords: Ambidextrous leadership; Artificial intelligence; Digital mindset; Innovation; Technology integration; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) requires dynamic adaptation in education and a systematic digital transformation of schools to integrate new technologies in a timely and sustainable manner. It has been suggested that school leaders play a special role in driving digital transformation (Berkovich & Hassan, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref1">15</reflink>]; Christensen et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref2">29</reflink>]; Dexter & Richardson, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref3">42</reflink>]; Schmitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib150" id="ref4">150</reflink>]) because they have a significant impact on the design and improvement of school organization, processes, and functioning (Grissom et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref5">60</reflink>]; Leithwood & Jantzi, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref6">98</reflink>]). For digital transformation to be successful, schools, like other organizations, need skilled and digitally literate leaders (Schwarzmüller et al., [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref7">151</reflink>]) who act on a specific digital mindset (Allen, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref8">2</reflink>]; Ghosh et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref9">54</reflink>]; Kane, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref10">82</reflink>]; McCarthy et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref11">111</reflink>]; Witthöft et al., [<reflink idref="bib175" id="ref12">175</reflink>]). In essence, a mindset is a set of beliefs or implicit theories that are domain- (Hughes, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref13">79</reflink>]) and context-specific (Solberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref14">157</reflink>]) as well as multidimensional (Rauch, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref15">137</reflink>]), which influence emotions, motivations, volitions, and behaviors (Achtziger & Gollwitzer, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>]), ultimately impacting distal outcomes (Burnette et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref17">22</reflink>]). Accordingly, a school leader's digital mindset is considered core to a school's successful transformation in the age of digitalization, as it sets the frame for how leaders think about and lead their organization, resulting in opportunities and possibilities being opened or closed (Allen, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>]; McCarthy et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref19">111</reflink>]). Kane ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref20">82</reflink>], p. 48) states: "The most successful digital transformations start with a shift in mindset at the employee, leadership, and organization levels. This shift produces a culture change that allows the company to be more agile, risk tolerant, experimental, and collaborative."</p> <p>However, empirical research on what constitutes a digital mindset, how to measure it, and how it impacts digital transformation is scarce (Hildebrandt et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref21">73</reflink>]; Rauch, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref22">137</reflink>]; Solberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref23">157</reflink>]). Notwithstanding, some personal characteristics and how leaders think about them appear to be particularly relevant to successfully transforming organizations in the digital age: empathy, innovativeness, openness, and agility (Pabst von Ohain, [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref24">124</reflink>]). This is particularly relevant for AI integration, which is usually associated with a high degree of uncertainty (Kaplan-Rakowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref25">83</reflink>]; Nordström, [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref26">122</reflink>]) and requires leaders to dynamically deal with unprecedented paradoxical challenges (Nguyen et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref27">121</reflink>]; Singh et al., [<reflink idref="bib156" id="ref28">156</reflink>]; Waldman et al., [<reflink idref="bib172" id="ref29">172</reflink>]), namely: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref30">1</reflink>) AI is a large, interdisciplinary field that includes subfields such as machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision (Russell & Norvig, [<reflink idref="bib145" id="ref31">145</reflink>]), and without in-depth knowledge, the field can be correspondingly confusing (Bewersdorff et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref32">16</reflink>]; Long & Magerko, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref33">102</reflink>]); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>) generative AI is currently developing rapidly (Fengchun & Homes, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref35">47</reflink>]; Kasneci et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref36">85</reflink>]; Yusuf et al., [<reflink idref="bib177" id="ref37">177</reflink>]), and schools are faced with constant and dynamic change, something they have not traditionally been prepared for (Dedering & Pietsch, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref38">38</reflink>]; Pietsch et al., [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref39">129</reflink>]); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>) many questions about AI ethics and privacy remain unanswered (Celik, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref41">23</reflink>]; Holmes et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref42">75</reflink>]; Shin & Park, [<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref43">154</reflink>]) and require decisions under extreme uncertainty; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref44">4</reflink>) leaders, teachers, and learners need to think critically and be competent users of AI technology (Ng et al., Mah & Groß, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref45">106</reflink>]; UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib165" id="ref46">165</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib166" id="ref47">166</reflink>]), especially to allay fears and anxieties about the future of AI (Hopcan, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref48">76</reflink>]; Velander et al., [<reflink idref="bib167" id="ref49">167</reflink>]); and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>) processes and structures for systematic and agile change management to adopt and integrate new AI technologies need to be established in schools (Ifenthaler & Egloffstein, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref51">81</reflink>]; McCarthy et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref52">111</reflink>]).</p> <p>Today's school leaders must meet all of these challenges while ensuring that the day-to-day operations of the school continue (Dedering & Pietsch, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref53">38</reflink>]; Pietsch et al., [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref54">131</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref55">129</reflink>]). For them, this means encouraging experimentation, creativity, and challenging the status quo (opening behavior) while adhering to policies and guidelines, taking governing action, and monitoring the achievement of school goals (closing behavior) at the same time. Outside of educational research, in general innovation and organizational research, this is referred to as paradoxical (Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref56">99</reflink>]) or ambidextrous leadership (Rosing & Zacher, [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref57">143</reflink>]; Rosing et al., [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref58">141</reflink>]), and it is assumed that such leadership helps leaders to counter paradoxes (Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref59">62</reflink>]), fosters innovation at all levels of an organization (Zacher & Rosing, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref60">179</reflink>]; Zacher et al., [<reflink idref="bib178" id="ref61">178</reflink>]), and helps employees cope with rapid technological change (Gouda et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref62">58</reflink>]). As outlined by Zacher and Rosing ([<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref63">179</reflink>]), the fundamental premise of ambidextrous leadership is that the intricacy of innovation processes necessitates a parallel complexity in leadership strategies. Consequently, this leadership model is primarily defined by its impact on the innovation performance of followers and organizations (Klonek et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref64">88</reflink>]). It has been hypothesized and empirically proven that the opening and closing behavior of leaders, when interacting at a high level, leads to positive joint effects that go beyond individual effects (Rosing & Zacher, [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref65">143</reflink>]). As a result, ambidextrous leadership is considered essential for leading a digital transformation (Duwe, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref66">44</reflink>]). This discourse is very similar to that of integrated leadership in schools, which assumes that complex change in schools requires a combination of transformational and instructional leadership (Bellibas et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref67">11</reflink>]; Kwan, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref68">92</reflink>]; Marks & Printy, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref69">109</reflink>]), thus simultaneously promoting bottom-up and top-down innovation strategies as well as first- and second-order change. However, while the educational discourse on integrated leadership is primarily concerned with effectiveness in more or less stable contexts (Kwan, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref70">92</reflink>]), the discourse on ambidextrous leadership explicitly focuses on innovation and change in dynamic and ever-evolving environments (Duwe, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref71">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this regard, it is striking that empirical studies in education have not yet examined the relationship between school leaders' digital mindsets and the implementation of AI nor the impact of integrated leadership on technology integration in schools. Further, a discourse on paradoxical or ambidextrous leadership and its effects in the context of digitalization has so far only taken place outside the field of educational research. Our article addresses these desiderata. Specifically, we investigate whether and to what extent two different leadership approaches (transformational leadership and digital instructional leadership) and ambidextrous leadership (that is, the interaction of both leadership approaches, hence, transformational-digital-instructional leadership) affect AI integration in schools. In addition, we examine whether and to what extent school leaders' digital mindsets influence their transformational leadership practices, their digital instructional leadership practices, and, specifically, the mediated effect of a digital mindset on AI implementation in schools. Against this background, the three following research questions guide our study:</p> <p>RQ1: Does a digital mindset positively affect school leadership and AI integration in schools?</p> <p>RQ2: Do transformational and digital instructional leadership positively affect AI integration in schools?</p> <p>RQ3: Does ambidextrous leadership positively affect AI integration in schools?</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-3">Theoretical background and hypotheses</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185099442-4">Implementing artificial intelligence in schools</hd> <p>AI in education has tremendous potential to improve learning, teaching, and educational administration (Bond et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref72">19</reflink>]; Pelletier et al., [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref73">125</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref74">126</reflink>]) and, consequently, has been evolving as a field in educational research for several years (Baker, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref75">5</reflink>]). AI applications in education can be categorized into four distinct areas: profiling and prediction (e.g., student retention, academic achievement), intelligent tutoring systems (e.g., diagnosing strengths, automated feedback), assessment and evaluation (e.g., automated grading, evaluation of feedback), and adaptive systems and personalization (e.g., recommending personalized content, supporting teachers and learning design) (Zawacki-Richter et al., [<reflink idref="bib181" id="ref76">181</reflink>]). The benefits of AI in education are manifold, including personalized learning, greater insight into student understanding, positive impact on learning outcomes, and reduced planning and administrative time for teachers as key opportunities (Bond et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref77">19</reflink>]; Kasneci et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref78">85</reflink>]). For example, learning analytics provides deeper insights into student understanding, allowing educators to more effectively identify and address learning gaps and positively impact student retention (Arnold & Pistilli, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref79">3</reflink>]; Mah, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref80">105</reflink>]; Tsai et al., [<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref81">162</reflink>]). Key challenges related to AI in education include ethical considerations (Holmes et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref82">75</reflink>]) such as concerns about honesty and plagiarism (Cotton et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref83">32</reflink>]), curriculum development (Bellas et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref84">10</reflink>]; Chiu, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref85">28</reflink>]; Touretzky et al., [<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref86">160</reflink>]), infrastructure, and digital literacy and AI literacy (Fraillon et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref87">50</reflink>]; Ifenthaler, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref88">80</reflink>]). With a focus on digital literacy and AI literacy for teaching and learning, conceptual frameworks, self-assessments, and empirical research are being developed (Lintner, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref89">100</reflink>]; Long & Magerko, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref90">102</reflink>]; Lorenz & Romeike, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref91">103</reflink>]; Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref92">119</reflink>]; Punie & Redecker, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref93">136</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib174" id="ref94">174</reflink>]). Teachers play a central role in equipping their students with twenty-first century skills, including AI (Markauskaite et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref95">108</reflink>]; Punie & Redecker, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref96">136</reflink>]). Recently, UNESCO ([<reflink idref="bib166" id="ref97">166</reflink>]) has published an AI competence framework for teachers, which aims to serves as a guide for professional development and to empower teachers to utilize AI in informed, secure, and ethical ways within the context of their teaching practices (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib166" id="ref98">166</reflink>]). Furthermore, in light of the evolving competencies that may be required for the transition to AI-enhanced education, the framework's target audience includes policy-makers and school leaders. This is with a view to supporting the design and planning of training courses on AI, continuous professional learning regarding the use of AI, and other enabling factors that can support teachers' effective use and systematic integration of AI in education (Pratschke, [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref99">133</reflink>]; UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib165" id="ref100">165</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib166" id="ref101">166</reflink>]).</p> <p>Therefore, it is important to provide teachers with professional development to become digitally and AI literate and to incorporate technology into their teaching practices (Celik et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref102">24</reflink>]; Seufert et al., [<reflink idref="bib152" id="ref103">152</reflink>]). Despite the growing body of research on AI in education, more empirical research and evidence is needed (Bond et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref104">19</reflink>]; Ferguson & Clow, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref105">48</reflink>]). This is even more important given the dynamic developments in generative AI and its competent, constructive adoption in educational settings (Kasneci et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref106">85</reflink>]; Kohnke et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref107">89</reflink>]; Mao et al., [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref108">107</reflink>]; Yusuf et al., [<reflink idref="bib177" id="ref109">177</reflink>]). In this regard, the role of school leaders and their leadership practices are regarded as being of central importance, as school leaders are uniquely positioned at the boundary of environment and organization and exert a major influence on the design and development of organizational structures, processes, and functions (Cheng & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref110">26</reflink>]; Dedering & Pietsch, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref111">38</reflink>]; Dexter & Richardson, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref112">42</reflink>]; Fullan et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref113">51</reflink>]; McCarthy et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref114">111</reflink>]). As technology leaders in schools (Arslan & Sumuer, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref115">4</reflink>]; Dexter & Richardson, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref116">42</reflink>]; Kaya-Kasikci et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref117">86</reflink>]) they have the function (McLeod & Richardson, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref118">113</reflink>], p. 255) "to enact sustained initiatives of communication and education until long-term change mindsets are firmly in place that digital technologies are here to stay, that they are important, and that they will continuously and disruptively foster numerous changes in schooling practices". In this regard, studies indicate that school leadership plays an important role in teachers' intentions to participate in technology-related professional development in order to integrate technology into the classroom in a meaningful and instructional way (Fütterer et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref119">52</reflink>]; Krille, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref120">91</reflink>]). Consequently, Fullan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref121">51</reflink>]) suggest that school leaders are pivotal to the successful integration of AI in schools and must establish a long-term vision for integrating AI-based technology into their schools in a thoughtful and ethical manner.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-5">Leadership for digital transformation</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185099442-6">Transformational leadership</hd> <p>Transformational leadership is seen as essential for organizational transformation, especially when it comes to bringing about significant change in others. Theory suggests (Yammarino & Dansereau, [<reflink idref="bib176" id="ref122">176</reflink>]) and empirical studies show (Siangchokyoo et al., [<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref123">155</reflink>]) that these aspects are closely related: first, leaders affect followers; second, followers change in a specific way; and third, the alteration of followers is responsible for transformational leadership effects at the organizational level. Transformational leaders provide their followers with an inspiring mission and vision and give meaning to their work (Bass, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref124">6</reflink>]). More specifically, such leaders transform and motivate their followers through their charisma; intellectual stimulation—that is, by actively soliciting new ideas and ways of doing things differently; and the individual consideration of a followers ' motives and needs (Bass & Riggio, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref125">9</reflink>]). In this regard, transformational leaders activate an organizational structure by initiating a process of change in accordance with dynamic environmental conditions, influencing followers' beliefs, attitudes, and values with personality traits that evoke prestige, confidence, and courage, and embracing the school's mission and goals (Bass & Avolio, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref126">7</reflink>]; Bass & Riggio, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref127">9</reflink>]). In sum, transformational leaders are considered as change agents who communicate a new vision that challenges the status quo, inspire followers to embrace new ideas and prioritize the success of the organization, and motivate them to recognize the importance of achieving future organizational goals.</p> <p>In educational research, transformational leadership became an increasingly important topic when extensive initiatives were undertaken to redesign schools to meet the needs of 21st-century students (Leithwood & Jantzi, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref128">97</reflink>]) and has been suggested as the most relevant leadership style for school leaders considering substantial reform and change (Leithwood & Jantzi, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref129">98</reflink>]). Although the general discussion of transformational leadership is often about bottom-up processes (Daniels et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref130">34</reflink>]), the school leader as a person plays a much more important role in educational research (Kovačević & Hallinger, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref131">90</reflink>]). Consequently, in this field of research, transformational leadership is primarily seen as a school leader's ability to create a school climate that is conducive to motivating and sustaining school improvement and promoting educational change in order to create an effective school (Kovačević & Hallinger, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref132">90</reflink>]; Muijs et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref133">115</reflink>]). It should be noted that this type of leadership is expected to produce indirect second-order effects by empowering teachers to work toward school improvement, which, in turn, produces first-order effects on learning (Hallinger, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref134">63</reflink>]). Accordingly, a large number of studies show that transformational leadership in schools influences variables at both school and teacher levels (Scheerens, [<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref135">149</reflink>]) but that the unique effect on student achievement is comparatively low (Robinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref136">139</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, as Dexter and Richardson ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref137">42</reflink>]) argue, successful integration of new, digital technologies in schools requires leadership that establishes a vision, provides high-quality learning opportunities, builds professional capacity, creates a supportive climate for learning, and connects with external partners. Consequently, when it comes to integrating emerging technologies into schools and classrooms, transformational leadership practices are considered essential (Schmitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib150" id="ref138">150</reflink>]). One of the main reasons for this is that digital transformation in schools is not just about installing new technologies but rather about changing mindsets and organizing and developing the capacity of teachers to adapt to a potential digital future (McCarthy et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref139">111</reflink>]; Timotheou et al., [<reflink idref="bib159" id="ref140">159</reflink>]). Philip ([<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref141">128</reflink>]) argues that transformational leadership is expected to facilitate digital transformation in organizations by encouraging divergent thinking and creativity, supporting structural change toward agility, and providing individual attention and support to organizational members to adapt to comprehensive change. Consequentially, transformational leaders are expected to both anticipate and initiate change in the digital world to drive innovation (Karakose et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref142">84</reflink>]). Although not extensively empirically researched, several studies suggest that these assumptions are largely accurate and that transformational leadership in schools is associated with a climate conducive to digital innovation (Berkovich & Hassan, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref143">15</reflink>]; Ruloff & Petko, [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref144">144</reflink>]) and sustainable integration of new technologies in schools (Schmitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib150" id="ref145">150</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-7">H1</hd> <p>Transformational leadership positively affects AI implementation in schools.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-8">Digital instructional leadership</hd> <p>Instructional leadership is one of the most popular leadership approaches in educational research and is considered to be particularly relevant when it comes to school effectiveness (Gümüs et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref146">61</reflink>]; Pietsch et al., [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref147">129</reflink>]). Based on the initial empirical finding that effective schools almost always had strong instructional leadership (Edmonds, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref148">46</reflink>]) and that in several studies no evidence of effective schools with weak instructional leadership was detectable (Sammons et al., [<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref149">147</reflink>]), during the 1980s the idea developed that schools need strong instructional leaders who prioritize improvements in the quality of teaching and learning activities (Bellibas et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref150">11</reflink>]) to successfully realize the potential of all students, regardless of their social backgrounds (Neumerski, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref151">118</reflink>]). However, what exactly was meant by instructional leadership was more or less unclear until the mid-1980s, when scholars began to develop models describing what it entails (Hallinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref152">64</reflink>]; Pietsch et al., [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref153">129</reflink>]).</p> <p>In particular, the model developed by Hallinger and Murphy ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref154">65</reflink>]), which proposes three dimensions of instructional leadership practices, is now well established. According to this approach, an instructional leader is a person who sets and communicates the school's academic goals, supervises instruction and monitors student progress, provides incentives for teaching and learning, protects instructional time, and creates opportunities for teacher professional development (Hallinger & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref155">66</reflink>]). This approach heavily focuses on those people in formal leadership positions and primarily pursues a top-down perspective (Bellibas et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref156">11</reflink>]; Hallinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref157">64</reflink>]). Instructional leadership is thought to produce primarily first-order change (Hallinger, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref158">63</reflink>])—that is, an instructional leader influences conditions that directly affect the quality of teaching and instruction provided by teachers to students in the classroom. In principle, the goal of such leadership is to guide and shape instruction and the conditions in which it takes place so that it is as effective as possible for the learning of all students (Boyce & Bowers, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref159">20</reflink>]; Hallinger, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref160">64</reflink>]; Neumerski, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref161">118</reflink>]). Consequently, instructional leadership is considered one of the most important and effective determinants at the individual school level when it comes to successful student learning (Robinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref162">139</reflink>]).</p> <p>Recently, scholars have developed the idea of digital instructional leadership (Berkovich & Hassan, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref163">14</reflink>]; Sanchez Corona, [<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref164">148</reflink>]; Shepherd & Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref165">153</reflink>])—that is, a school leader's ability to (a) use information technology, (b) understand and communicate the accompanying changes in teaching and instruction, (c) promote a vision of the role of technology integration and its added value in the school, and (d) create opportunities to learn for all those involved in a school for technology integration (Berkovich & Hassan, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref166">14</reflink>]; Dexter & Richardson, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref167">42</reflink>]). It is argued that the technology-oriented transformation of schools requires strong instructional leadership with an appealing vision of technology integration (Dexter & Richardson, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref168">42</reflink>]; MacLeod, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref169">112</reflink>]) to empower and encourage teachers to use new technologies for the greater good of their students (Navaridas-Nalda et al., [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref170">117</reflink>]). The goal of such leadership then is to promote and ensure the coherence of the teaching and learning process in a hybrid or distance learning environment (Berkovich, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref171">12</reflink>]; Hassan & Berkovich, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref172">68</reflink>]). Empirical studies of whether and how digital instructional leadership works in schools are scarce. Nevertheless, early results show that such leadership can influence teachers' attitudes toward digital learning and teaching (Berkovich, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref173">12</reflink>]) as well as students' learning (Hassan & Berkovich, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref174">68</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-9">H2</hd> <p>Digital instructional leadership positively affects AI implementation in schools.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-10">Ambidextrous leadership</hd> <p>For a long time, transformational and (traditional) instructional leadership in schools were seen as two separate, distinct approaches to leadership that require an either/or choice (Bellibas et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref175">11</reflink>]). In recent years, however, it has become increasingly clear that comprehensive educational innovation and change requires leadership that follows a both/and approach and addresses learning at all levels of a given school while simultaneously focusing on student learning and success (Boyce & Bowers, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref176">20</reflink>]; Day et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref177">37</reflink>]; Kwan, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref178">92</reflink>]; Marks & Printy, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref179">109</reflink>]). Accordingly, integrative leadership approaches have recently become more prevalent in educational research, emphasizing the importance of addressing first- and second-order change simultaneously to transform schools while ensuring a high quality of instruction (i.e., integrative leadership [Marks & Printy, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref180">109</reflink>]], learning-centered leadership [Goldenring et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref181">56</reflink>]], and leadership for learning [Daniels et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref182">34</reflink>]]). The assumption here is that instructional and transformational leadership coexist and can complement and reinforce each other (Bellibas et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref183">11</reflink>]; Kwan, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref184">92</reflink>]).</p> <p>This idea partly overlaps with the concept of ambidextrous leadership, which is widely used in general organizational and innovation research which is considered to be one of the most important drivers for the digital transformation of companies (Duwe, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref185">44</reflink>]). Scholars suggest that two types of leadership behaviors are needed simultaneously in the context of organizational transformation processes (Rosing et al., [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref186">141</reflink>]; Trong Tuan, [<reflink idref="bib161" id="ref187">161</reflink>]): opening and closing leadership behavior. While opening leadership behavior ensures that creativity is unleashed and new things are tried, closing leadership ensures that innovations and routines are implemented effectively (Zacher & Rosing, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref188">179</reflink>]). Rosing and Zacher ([<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref189">143</reflink>], p. 55) describe these two aspects of leadership as follows: "Opening leader behavior comprises, for example, to encourage followers to experiment with new ideas, to give room for independent thinking and acting, and to allow for learning from errors. In contrast, the aim of closing leader behavior is to reduce variance in follower behavior in order to promote implementation. Closing leader behavior encompasses, for example, establishing routines, monitoring goal achievement, and controlling the adherence to rules." In the school context, this may, for instance, mean that a school leader gives teachers the freedom to experiment with different digital tools (opening leadership) while monitoring whether these tools and their use are having the desired effect (closing leadership), namely, whether they are reflected in the quality of instruction or student learning and achievement. In this understanding, transformational leadership primarily addresses opening behavior and digital instructional leadership addresses closing behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-11">H3</hd> <p>Ambidextrous (that is, integrated transformational-digital-instructional) leadership positively affects AI implementation in schools.</p> <p>To achieve a high level of ambidextrous leadership, leaders must demonstrate a high level of both opening and closing leadership behaviors; methodically, this is an interaction of both aspects of leadership (Rosing & Zacher, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref190">142</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref191">143</reflink>]). This is perfectly in line with the idea of integrative leadership which is widely used in educational research and which "focuses ... on demonstrating two leadership types at the highest level" (Bellibas et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref192">11</reflink>], p. 781). Although there is a paucity of studies that empirically investigate such integrative leadership approaches in schools, the available evidence suggests that the interplay or interaction of transformational and instructional leadership entails a unique effect that goes beyond the specific effects of instructional and transformational leadership. Corresponding effects on learning have been observed at all levels of schools—the school as an organization, the professional development of teachers, the improvement of instruction, and the learning of students. For instance, Day et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref193">37</reflink>]) demonstrated that both transformational and instructional leadership alone are not sufficient to promote school improvement and educational change, and that only the combination of both aspects of leadership leads to sustainable change in schools. Bellibas et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref194">11</reflink>]) showed that teachers' professional learning and development strongly benefits from integrated leadership. Pietsch and Tulowitzki ([<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref195">130</reflink>]) were able to show that the implementation of innovative and challenging teaching practices requires a coordinated integration of both aspects of leadership. Finally, Marks and Printy ([<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref196">109</reflink>]) demonstrated that transformational leadership is a necessary but not sufficient condition for effective instructional leadership, and the effect of integrated leadership on student achievement is substantial. Whether such effects can also be demonstrated with regard to the implementation of new learning technologies and digital transformation in schools and classrooms has not yet been investigated.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-12">Digital mindset as antecedent</hd> <p>While both the effects of digital instructional leadership on teachers' attitudes and students' learning and the effects of transformational leadership on educational innovation and change have been explored empirically, research on their antecedents has rarely been conducted so far (Berkovich, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref197">12</reflink>]; Berkovich & Hassan, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref198">14</reflink>]; Leithwood & Jantzi, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref199">98</reflink>]; Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref200">158</reflink>]). However, theory suggests, and scholars make a strong case, that leading the digital transformation requires a specific digital mindset (Allen, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref201">2</reflink>]; Ghosh et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref202">54</reflink>]; Kane, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref203">82</reflink>]; McCarthy et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref204">111</reflink>]), namely, a leader's context-specific dynamic traits that determine how they perceive the environment and decide how to act and solve tasks in the context of digitalization (Hildebrandt et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref205">73</reflink>]). As Allen ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref206">2</reflink>]) notes, a leader's digital mindset is the foundation for organizational success in the age of digitalization because it frames how leaders think about and manage their business, resulting in the opening or closing of opportunities and possibilities. Accordingly, there seems to be a consensus that the digital mindset of leaders should be characterized by a "change-as-usual" rather than a "business-as-usual" orientation (Eden et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref207">45</reflink>]) and a "both/and" rather than an "either/or" thinking (Vopentesta et al., [<reflink idref="bib170" id="ref208">170</reflink>]) that will enable them to lead positive digital change (Connolly et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref209">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Generally, a mindset can be defined as follows (Rauch, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref210">137</reflink>], p. 16): "A mindset represents a combination of robust, pre-set beliefs activated in the interaction between a sensemaker's mind and his/her context. This combination of beliefs is perceived by the sensemaker as the correct logic for perceiving, understanding and acting within a given situation." Consequently, a digital mindset represents a multidimensional combination of beliefs that is activated in the context of digitalization (Rauch, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref211">137</reflink>]). According to Solberg et al. ([<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref212">157</reflink>]), such beliefs can be divided into self-oriented and situation-oriented components, namely, individual beliefs about oneself in digitalization and beliefs about the context in which digitalization takes place. An individual's mindset exerts a considerable influence on their motivation, volition, and behavior (Achtziger & Gollwitzer, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref213">1</reflink>]), which, in turn, shape outcomes (Burnett et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref214">22</reflink>]). To drive digitalization forward, a digital mindset is required at all levels of an organization to enable comprehensive and sustainable change (Kane, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref215">82</reflink>]; Pabst von Ohain, [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref216">124</reflink>]). Although a digital mindset is regarded as a key driver of digitalization, little empirical research has been done on what constitutes a digital mindset and how to measure it (Hildebrandt & Beimborn, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref217">72</reflink>]). However, following Den Hartog et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref218">41</reflink>]) and based on several hundred expert ratings, Pabst von Ohain ([<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref219">124</reflink>]) recently used a three-step process (Pratt et al., [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref220">134</reflink>]) and applied a Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref221">55</reflink>]) to identify attributes that describe a prototypical digital leader, namely, an ideal leader for digital transformation. This research identified four clusters of individual traits that are associated with successfully leading digital transformation. According to the experts surveyed, such a prototypical digital transformation leader can be described in four dimensions: empathic, innovative, open, and agile.</p> <p> <emph>Empathy</emph>, here, is the ability to experience and understand the emotions of others (Cuff et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref222">33</reflink>]) and is regarded as central for both educational improvement and change and leadership in schools (Berkovich & Eyal, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref223">13</reflink>]). <emph>Innovativeness</emph> generally refers to the degree to which a person is relatively quicker to adopt new ideas and solutions than other members of a system (Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref224">140</reflink>]). Being domain-specific (Goldsmith, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref225">57</reflink>]), innovativeness in the context of digitalization mainly revolves around technology orientation (Pabst von Ohain, [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref226">124</reflink>]), which we define as a school leader's orientation and inclination to adopt and promote new technologies in the context of schooling. <emph>Openness</emph> or, more specifically, openness to change, in the context of digital transformation refers to a person's willingness to support change and their positive affect toward change (Wanberg & Banas, [<reflink idref="bib173" id="ref227">173</reflink>]) and is generally considered an essential quality that every successful leader must possess (Northouse, [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref228">123</reflink>]). <emph>Agility</emph> is essentially the ability to respond quickly to rapidly changing circumstances (Brown & Agnew, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref229">21</reflink>]). In the context of constantly evolving environments and digital transformation, agility refers to the ability to identify and act on opportunities as they arise and to proactively build advantage from fast-changing environments (Verhoef et al., [<reflink idref="bib169" id="ref230">169</reflink>]); hence, it is also referred to as entrepreneurial or proactive agility (Chakravarty et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref231">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-13">H4</hd> <p>School leaders' digital mindsets positively affect their transformational leadership practices.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-14">H5</hd> <p>School leaders' digital mindsets positively affect their digital instructional leadership practices.</p> <p>Although various strands of research have suggested that such personal traits and how leaders think about them influence leadership behavior and its effects (Deinert et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref232">39</reflink>]; Hogan & Kaiser, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref233">74</reflink>]), studies that have empirically examined this in the field of school leadership are scarce (Leithwood et al., [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref234">96</reflink>]). In principle, however, a core assumption in (educational) leadership research is that traits and beliefs about them influence the leader's actions, which in turn influence various internal school factors and, consequentially, school performance, such as the integration of technology in the classroom and, consequently, student achievement (Christensen et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref235">29</reflink>]; Hsu & Sharma, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref236">77</reflink>]; Leithwood & Day, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref237">95</reflink>]; Zadok & Benoliel, [<reflink idref="bib180" id="ref238">180</reflink>]). Even though little evidence exists, cognitive empathy (i.e., mental perspective taking) in particular seems to be a relevant antecedent of transformational and instructional leadership (Berkovich & Eyal, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref239">13</reflink>]). While some empirical evidence about teachers' innovativeness and its predictors is available (Blömeke et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref240">18</reflink>]; Dedering & Pietsch, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref241">38</reflink>]), little is known about school leaders' innovativeness and its implications for leadership (Davitt, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref242">36</reflink>]). In particular, nothing is known about whether and how the technological orientation of school leaders affects their leadership practices. At least initial findings are available for the aspects of openness and agility: these show that both a school leader's openness to change and (entrepreneurial) proactivity are relevant psychological resource for successful school leadership in dynamic and changing environments and may affect both teacher and school innovativeness (Leithwood, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref243">94</reflink>]; Pihie et al., [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref244">132</reflink>]). Since the preliminary empirical findings on transformational and digital instructional leadership indicate that they are positively associated with technology integration in schools (Berkovich & Hassan, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref245">14</reflink>]; Dexter & Richardson, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref246">42</reflink>]; Schmitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib150" id="ref247">150</reflink>]), it is expected that the digital mindset of school leaders will have a positive effect on it, mediated through these two aspects of leadership in schools (Fig. 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Conceptual model of our study and hypotheses</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-15">H6</hd> <p>School leaders' digital mindsets positively affect AI implementation in schools indirectly—that is, mediated by both transformational and digital instructional leadership.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-16">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185099442-17">Sample</hd> <p>In our study, we use data from <emph>N</emph> = 179 school leaders located in Germany. The school leaders attended a conference in the federal state of Lower Saxony in August 2023, which was organized by the State Institute for Quality Development in Schools (NLQ) and to which all school leaders from public schools in the state were invited. An online survey was conducted at the beginning of the conference, the data from which we use for our study. For privacy reasons, only a small amount of personal and contextual data were collected, and for test efficiency a selection of the shortest possible scales was used. The gender distribution of participants was 51.4 percent female and 48.6 percent male. Of the participants, 13.4% are principals of schools at the ISCED 1 level (primary schools) and 86.6% are principals of schools at a different ISCED level (secondary schools) or special needs schools (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib164" id="ref248">164</reflink>]). Of these schools, 37.1% were located in urban areas and 62.9% in rural areas. The average size of the schools the participants run was 835.6 students (<emph>SD</emph>: 634.4), ranging from 50 to 3400 students.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-18">Data analyses</hd> <p>Since our data come from a single instrument, we preliminary examined the common variance by loading all items used in the analyses on a single unrotated factor (Harmann, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref249">67</reflink>]). If the value determined here is less than 50%, it is unlikely that method bias in model estimates due to common variance is to be expected (Lance et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref250">93</reflink>]). In our data, the common variance amounted to 24.5%. To test our hypotheses, we estimated structural equation models in MPLUS 8.5 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref251">116</reflink>]). For each scale, reliability coefficients were estimated based on the data set employed in the study. In light of the fact that our study is conducted within the framework of structural equation modeling (SEM), we adhered to best practice recommendations (Cheung et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref252">27</reflink>]; Dunn et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref253">43</reflink>]; Hayes & Coutts, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref254">70</reflink>]) and, therefore, employed McDonald's omega (ω) as an alternative to Cronbach's alpha (α) for the purpose of evaluating the reliability of the measurement instruments utilized. To answer our research questions and evaluate the posed hypotheses, we followed a three-step procedure: In the first step, we investigated the factorial structure of all measurement models by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and investigating their model fit. In the second step, we investigated the assumed relations between our model variables. In both cases, a root mean square error of approximation (<emph>RMSEA</emph>) of < 0.08, a standardized root mean square residual (<emph>SRMR</emph>) of < 0.08, and a comparative fit index (<emph>CFI</emph>) of > 0.90 indicate acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref255">78</reflink>]). As we estimated an indirect path model, a model containing mediator variables, in a third step, we further tested mediation effects' robustness by applying a bootstrapped mediation analysis, providing 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals with 2000 bootstrap replications (Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref256">69</reflink>]; Preacher & Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref257">135</reflink>]). According to Hayes ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref258">69</reflink>]), the estimates of indirect effects can be viewed as statistically significant if the 95% confidence intervals (<emph>CIs</emph>) do not contain zero. Since only 0.2% of the data was missing, we used a full information maximum likelihood estimator (<emph>FIML</emph>) to deal with missing data.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-19">Measures</hd> <p> <emph>School Leaders' Digital Mindsets</emph>. Following Pabst von Ohain's ([<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref259">124</reflink>]) framework for describing and measuring characteristics of prototypical digital leaders, we assessed the digital mindsets of school leaders in four dimensions, selecting one specific facet per dimension that was considered most relevant by the experts in his qualitative study:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Empathy:</emph> perspective taking (<emph>ω</emph> = 0.644). Empathy is a multidimensional and fuzzy concept (Cuff et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref260">33</reflink>]), although according to Coplan ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref261">31</reflink>]), from a theoretical point of view, empathy is best understood as an active process in which a person sees things from another's perspective. Following this (narrow) understanding, three items from Davis' ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref262">35</reflink>]) interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) were used to measure school leaders' tendencies to spontaneously adopt the psychological point of view of others, called perspective taking. Items were answered on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Example item: "When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to 'put myself in his shoes' for a while."</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Innovativeness:</emph> technology orientation (<emph>ω</emph> = 0.790). Three items developed by Gatignon and Xuereb ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref263">53</reflink>]) were adapted to assess school leaders' tendencies to support new ideas and the adoption of new technology and, hence, to measure technology orientation. Items were answered on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Example item: "I actively promote the use of technically advanced products and services at my school."</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Openness:</emph> openness to change (<emph>ω</emph> = 0.768). Three items from Ruvio et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref264">146</reflink>]) organizational openness scale were adapted and used for measuring school leaders' openness to change. Items were answered on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Example item: "I am always open and responsive to changes."</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Agility:</emph> proactivity (<emph>ω</emph> = 0.762). Three items from a scale developed by Ruvio et al. ([<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref265">146</reflink>]) were adapted to assess the proactive agility of school leaders, that is, proactivity. Items were answered on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Example item: "I am always looking for opportunities for my school."</item> </ulist> <p> <emph>Transformational Leadership</emph> (<emph>ω</emph> = 0.651). School leaders' practices to foster significant change in others were measured through four items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ: Bass & Avolio, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref266">8</reflink>]), indicating idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Transformational leadership is modeled as a unidimensional construct because the validation of the German MLQ showed that it cannot be divided into sub-facets (Heinitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref267">71</reflink>]). All items were measured on a four-point scale (1 = very rarely or never, 4 = very often). Example item: "I seek differing perspectives when solving problems."</p> <p> <emph>Digital Instructional Leadership</emph> (<emph>ω</emph> = 0.624). A three-item scale, developed as part of the International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 (ICILS; Vennemann et al., [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref268">168</reflink>]) and adapted by Tulowitzki et al. ([<reflink idref="bib163" id="ref269">163</reflink>]) for school leader questionnaires, was used to capture school leaders' instructional leadership in the context of digitalization. All items were measured on a four-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). Example item: "I provide support to teachers who are struggling with the use of digital media in the classroom."</p> <p> <emph>AI Integration</emph> (<emph>ω</emph> = 0.745). Based on the assumption that changes in schools must take place at all levels of any given school, and thus comprehensively, in order to be sustainable, we developed a new three-item scale to measure AI integration in schools, which measures the extent to which AI is used in the classroom, at the school level, and at the school management level. All items were measured on a four-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). Example item: "In the classroom, we use AI-based tools (e.g. DeepL, ChatGPT)."</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-20">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185099442-21">Descriptives and measurement models</hd> <p>The results of the descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and latent correlations) and fit measures (<emph>CFI</emph>, <emph>RMSEA</emph>, <emph>SRMR</emph>) of the measurement models are shown in Table 1. The results demonstrate a good fit of all measurement models (<emph>CFI</emph> > 0.90, <emph>RMSEA</emph> < 0.08, <emph>SRMR</emph> < 0.08). It should be noted, however, that digital instructional leadership and AI implementation in schools were only measured using three items each; these were, therefore, just identified and thus have a perfect model fit.</p> <p>Table 1 Means, standard deviations, correlations of latent variables, and fit indices of measurement models</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>M</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p>PA</p></th><th align="left"><p>OP</p></th><th align="left"><p>TO</p></th><th align="left"><p>PT</p></th><th align="left"><p>TL</p></th><th align="left"><p>DL</p></th><th align="left"><p>CFI</p></th><th align="left"><p>RMSEA</p></th><th align="left"><p>SRMR</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>PA</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.29</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.90</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>.983</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>.031</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>.051</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>OP</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.69</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.538</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>TO</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.41</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.87</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.621</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.407</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PT</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.83</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.56</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.115</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.316</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>−.089</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>TL</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.41</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.380</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.553</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.284</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.664</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>.003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>DL*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.59</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.619</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.352</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.555</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>-.130</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.213</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>AI*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.73</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.331</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.297</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.278</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>-.171</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>.395</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>.<bold>405</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>1.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>PA</emph> proactivity, <emph>OP</emph> openness, <emph>TO</emph> technology orientation, <emph>PT</emph> perspective taking, <emph>TL</emph> transformational leadership, <emph>DL</emph> digital instructional leadership, <emph>AI</emph> AI integration Bold correlations <emph>p</emph> <.05; *Just identified model, therefore perfect fit</p> <p>With regard to the digital mindsets of the school leaders surveyed, we observed consistently high scores across all dimensions, with the exception of empathy, or more specifically, perspective taking (<emph>M</emph> = 4.83). It is striking that the surveyed school leaders considered themselves to be particularly open-minded (<emph>M</emph> = 6.03), namely, flexible and adaptable to new ideas and changes. On average, their leadership was more transformational (<emph>M</emph> = 3.12) than digital (<emph>M</emph> = 2.89). In the schools they run, AI has only been introduced to a limited extent (<emph>M</emph> = 2.01).</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-22">Structural equation model</hd> <p>We tested hypotheses H1, H2, H4, and H5 by estimating a structural equation model. The proposed model again demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data (<emph>CFI</emph> = 0.93, <emph>RMSEA</emph> = 0.04, <emph>SRMR</emph> = 0.07). Table 2 provides the standardized path coefficients and standard errors for each path, as well as variance explained (R<sups>2</sups>) for the dependent latent variables. The model accounted for 26% of the between-school variance in AI integration, 43% of the variance in school leaders ' digital instructional leadership practices, and 67% of the variance in their transformational leadership behaviors. The results show that school leaders' digital mindsets influence their leadership activities, with each facet of the mindset having differential effects on transformational and digital instructional leadership. Especially, proactivity seems to be particularly important for both aspects of leadership. School leaders who see themselves as proactive are more likely to lead their schools both transformatively (<emph>β</emph> = 0.338, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.159, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) and digital instructionally (<emph>β</emph> = 0.424, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.147, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). In contrast, there are no significant associations between openness and both transformational (<emph>β</emph> = 0.126, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.114, <emph>p</emph> > 0.10) and digital instructional (<emph>β</emph> = 0.035, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.138, <emph>p</emph> > 0.10) leadership. A school leaders' technology orientation, however, is only associated with their digital instructional leadership practices (<emph>β</emph> = 0.272, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.114, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05); a statistically significant correlation with transformational leadership is not observable (<emph>β</emph> = 0.083, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.116, <emph>p</emph> > 0.10). The opposite is true for perspective taking: here we find statistically significant associations with transformational (<emph>β</emph> = 0.671, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.116, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) but not with digital instructional (<emph>β</emph> = −0.068, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.114, <emph>p</emph> > 0.10) leadership in schools. It is striking that both leadership styles do not correlate significantly with each other (<emph>r</emph> = 0.003, <emph>p</emph> > 0.10) but show comparably high associations with AI integration in schools (<emph>β</emph><subs><emph>transformational leadership</emph></subs> = 0.323, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.092, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; <emph>β</emph><subs><emph>digital instructional leadership</emph></subs> = 0.336, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.094, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). In conclusion, the findings reported here provide general support for our hypotheses H1, H2, H4, and H5. Transformational and digital instructional leadership have a positive effect on comprehensive AI integration in schools, while the digital mindset of school leaders exerts a positive influence on both leadership behaviors.</p> <p>Table 2 Results for the standardized direct effects</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>β</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Direct Effects on Transformational Leadership</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Proactivity → Transformational Leadership</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.338</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.159</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.033</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>.667</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Openness → Transformational Leadership</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.126</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.145</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.386</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Technology Orientation → Transformational Leadership</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.083</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.116</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.475</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Perspective Taking → Transformational Leadership</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.671</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.116</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Direct Effects on Digital Instructional Leadership</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Proactivity → Digital Instructional Leadership</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.424</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.147</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>.434</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Openness → Digital Instructional Leadership</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.035</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.138</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.801</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Technology Orientation → Digital Instructional Leadership</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.272</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.114</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.017</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Perspective Taking → Digital Instructional Leadership</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.068</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.114</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.552</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Direct Effects on AI Implementation in Schools</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Transformational Leadership → AI Implementation</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.323</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.092</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>.264</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Digital Instructional Leadership → AI Implementation</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.336</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.094</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0185099442-23">Latent interaction analysis</hd> <p>Next, we included a latent interaction between transformational and digital instructional leadership in our structural equation model to investigate possible joint effects of both leadership practices on AI implementation in schools and, thus, to answer hypothesis H3. Here, we applied a random effects model to estimate a latent moderated structural equation model. To receive standardized path coefficients, we first standardized all manifest indicator variables, following Maslowsky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref270">110</reflink>]). Since no fit indices are available for random effects models, we compared the log-likelihoods of the model without and of the model with latent interaction in order to investigate if the addition of the transformational-digital instructional leadership interaction added significant value to the analysis, using a log-likelihood ratio test and report coefficient <emph>D</emph> (Klein & Moosbrugger, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref271">87</reflink>]). Further, we investigated whether more variance in the AI integration between schools (<emph>ΔR</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups>) could be explained as a result of the addition of the newly added parameter (Maslowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref272">110</reflink>]). In accordance with best practice recommendations for interaction reporting, we also use a <emph>pick-a-point</emph>, simple slope procedure (Finsaas & Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref273">49</reflink>]). Accordingly, we show graphically how ambidextrous leadership affects AI integration in schools when digital instructional leadership is equal to the sample mean (<emph>average</emph>) or 1 SD below (<emph>low</emph>) or 1 SD above (<emph>high</emph>) this value.</p> <p>The results show that the latent moderated structural equation model fits our data better than the model without latent interaction (<emph>D</emph> = 1245.552, <emph>df</emph> = 1, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). Therefore, in addition to the unique effects of transformational and digital instructional leadership on AI integration in schools, the interplay between the two leadership approaches is also important to achieve change in this regard (<emph>β</emph> = 0.225, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.100, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). The interaction plot in Fig. 2 is also an illustration of this: As assumed in the theory, the likelihood of comprehensive AI integration depends on ambidextrous leadership practices, i.e. the interaction of transformational and digital instructional leadership. This is also reflected in the explained variance of the dependent variable, AI integration. Here, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> for AI integration is increased to 0.305 by adding the latent interaction. The corresponding value for <emph>ΔR</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> is 0.04. In other words, adding the latent interaction to the model increases the explanatory power of the model for AI integration in schools by about 15%. It is also clear that this is an additional, unique effect; even when the interaction term is added, the effects of transformational (<emph>β</emph> = 0.325, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.091, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and digital instructional leadership (<emph>β</emph> = 0.320, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.095, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) remain stable. The results support our hypothesis H5, indicating that ambidextrous leadership exerts an independent influence on the comprehensive integration of AI in schools, extending beyond the effects of transformational and digital-instructional leadership.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Interaction plot: Ambidextrous leadership and its effect on AI integration in schools</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-24">Mediation analysis</hd> <p>To examine H6 and, thus, a school leader's digital mindset's indirect effect on AI integration in school, we finally re-estimated the structural equation model using a bootstrapping procedure with 2,000 replications and calculated total effects—that is, the sum of direct and indirect effects (Preacher & Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref274">135</reflink>]). The analyses demonstrate a significant total indirect effect of school leaders' proactivity (<emph>β</emph> = 0.252, <emph>CI</emph> [0.036, 0.400], <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) and perspective taking (<emph>β</emph> = 0.194, <emph>CI</emph> [0.041, 0.508], <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) on AI integration in schools. However, we do not find such total effects for the mindset facets of openness (<emph>β</emph> = 0.052, <emph>CI</emph> [−0.087, 0.235], <emph>p</emph> > 0.10) and technology orientation (<emph>β</emph> = 0.118, <emph>CI</emph> [−0.032, 0.267], <emph>p</emph> > 0.10). For the facet of openness, no specific indirect effects on a school's AI implementation could be demonstrated either (<emph>β</emph><subs><emph>transformational leadership</emph></subs> = 0.041, <emph>CI</emph> [−0.067, 0.130], <emph>p</emph> > 0.10; <emph>β</emph><subs><emph>digital instructional leadership</emph></subs> = 0.012, <emph>CI</emph> [−0.027, 0.242], <emph>p</emph> > 0.10). For technology orientation, on the other hand, we demonstrate a significant specific effect that is mediated by digital instructional leadership (<emph>β</emph> = 0.091, <emph>CI</emph> [0.010, 0.216], <emph>p</emph> > 0.10). We also find a specific indirect effect for the perspective taking facet. In this case, it is mediated only by transformational leadership (<emph>β</emph> = 0.194, <emph>CI</emph> [0.081, 0.413], <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). The analysis also revealed that 31.7% of the impact that school leaders have on AI integration in schools can be attributed to their digital mindset; 11.6 percentage points are attributable to the perspective taking facet (<emph>p</emph> < 0.05), 10.3 percentage points to the proactivity facet (<emph>p</emph> < 0.05), 5.9 percentage points to the technology orientation facet <emph>(p</emph> > 0.10), and 3.9 percentage points to the openness facet (<emph>p</emph> > 0.10). The findings provide empirical evidence to support our hypothesis H6 that a school leader's digital mindset exerts a distal influence on the comprehensive integration of AI in schools, which is mediated by his or her leadership behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-25">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185099442-26">Summary of results</hd> <p>The objective of our investigation was to address the following research questions: (RQ1) Does a digital mindset positively affect school leadership and AI integration in schools?; (RQ2) Do transformational and digital instructional leadership positively affect AI integration in schools?; and (RQ3) Does ambidextrous leadership positively affect AI integration in schools?</p> <p>With regard to RQ1, we were able to show that school leaders' digital mindsets influence their leadership activities. Being proactive or agile is the most important aspect of the leadership mindset for AI integration in schools, as it affects both transformational and digital instructional leadership. Hence, schools in which leaders consider themselves to be proactive are more likely to implement AI at scale. Almost as important is the empathy or perspective taking facet. The ability to empathize with others and understand their emotions is a major contributor to a comprehensive implementation of AI at all levels of a school, namely classroom, school, and school leadership and management levels. The emergence of AI tools, especially ChatGPT, and its possibilities, challenges, and changes for education has caused mixed feelings among educators (Grassini, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref275">59</reflink>]; Lo, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref276">101</reflink>]; Mah, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref277">104</reflink>]). A major concern is assessment. Currently, there are few guidelines and regulations for the appropriate use of AI in exams. Thus, educators are concerned about the misuse of AI tools for cheating and the consequences for the learning process, grades, and integrity (Cotton et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref278">32</reflink>]). Overall, AI tools raise ethical considerations, such as privacy concerns, data bias, and regulations (Bianchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref279">17</reflink>]; Fengchun & Homes, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref280">47</reflink>]). Therefore, being aware of these concerns, being an empathetic school leader, and understanding teachers' concerns about the implementation of AI in schools might be relevant to start a constructive conversation and discussion about how to implement AI in schools in a meaningful way.</p> <p>Regarding RQ2, our results indicate that leadership is strongly associated with AI integration in schools and that its antecedents, namely, a digital mindset, have a significant impact on school leadership and whether AI is integrated at all levels of any given school. Both, digital instructional and transformational leadership exert independent effects, and can therefore influence AI integration in schools to a certain degree. In this regard, our findings are consistent with those in the area of technology leadership in schools, which indicate that either digital instructional or transformational leadership contributes to enhanced technology integration in schools (Berkovich, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref281">12</reflink>]; Berkovich & Hassan, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref282">15</reflink>]; Hassan & Berkovich, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref283">68</reflink>]; Ruloff & Petko, [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref284">144</reflink>]; Schmitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib150" id="ref285">150</reflink>]). What stands out is the fact that transformational leadership and digital instructional leadership are independent dimensions. In contrast to traditional (non-digital) instructional and transformational leadership (Bellibas et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref286">11</reflink>]; Marks & Printy, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref287">109</reflink>]), no demonstrable correlation between these two leadership facets was observable when covariates were controlled for. As a result, just because one leads in a transformational or digital instructional way does not mean that AI will be successfully implemented in schools. Thus, according to our findings, one of the two leadership facets alone is not sufficient to drive digital transformation in schools.</p> <p>In terms of RQ3, our findings demonstrate a significant interaction effect between transformational and digital instructional leadership. Consistent with the few empirical studies empirically investigating integrative leadership approaches in schools (Bellibas et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref288">11</reflink>]; Marks & Printy, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref289">109</reflink>]; Pietsch & Tulowitzki, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref290">130</reflink>]), our study showed that the interplay between the two leadership dimensions has a unique effect. Consequently, the interplay between the two leadership dimensions is important: when school leaders simultaneously lead their schools with a high level of transformational and digital instructional leadership, the likelihood of AI integration in schools is significantly higher. Thus, integrated (transformational-digital-instructional) leadership uniquely affects AI implementation in schools. Since, in our understanding, transformational leadership opens up opportunities for teachers to experiment in the context of digitalization, while digital instructional leadership closes these opportunities and forces implementation, this means that appropriate ambidextrous leadership is particularly important to actively shape digital transformation in schools. This finding is consistent with findings on ambidextrous leadership from general innovation and organizational research (Duwe, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref291">44</reflink>]; Gouda et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref292">58</reflink>]; Rosing et al., [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref293">141</reflink>]; Rosing & Zacher, [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref294">143</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-27">Limitations</hd> <p>The results of this study must be interpreted with some limitations. We used data from only 179 school leaders in Germany. This sample size is rather small, so the results can be considered more of an exploratory study. In addition, school leaders were located in only one federal state in northern Germany (Lower Saxony). Due to the federal structure of Germany, results may vary across the country. For reasons of test economy, we also only used a selection of the constructs of the mindset dimensions mentioned by Pabst von Ohain ([<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref295">124</reflink>]) in our study. For example, our study employed a narrow conceptualization of empathy, focusing exclusively on cognitive aspects and disregarding the emotional dimension. As this was a cross-sectional study, we were unable to investigate the extent to which ambidextrous leadership, namely, transformational and digital instructional leadership in rapid alternation, is used sequentially (Rosing et al., [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref296">141</reflink>]). Although we carefully selected leadership items that best reflect opening and closing behaviors, it would be desirable to develop a new scale that explicitly measures ambidextrous leadership in the school context (Rosing & Zacher, [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref297">143</reflink>]). Further, our analyses are based on self-reporting by school leaders, so misreporting cannot be completely ruled out. In this context, school leaders' responses to a survey conducted in the summer of 2023 may reflect general uncertainty in society and schools due to the rapid and dynamic development of AI applications, especially generative AI. In addition, digital instructional leadership and AI implementation in schools were measured with only three items each, so they were just identified and have a perfect model fit. Therefore, future research should seek to collect data with a more comprehensive instrument and to longitudinally collect data from across the country, at different school levels, and in different contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-28">Conclusion, implications, and future research</hd> <p>Our findings provide initial and preliminary evidence that the digital mindsets of school leaders influence the implementation of AI in schools. Specifically, proactivity and empathy emerge as critical facets that affect leadership in the context of AI implementation. This suggests that school leaders who are both proactive and empathetic will be more adept at integrating AI technologies in ways that are sensitive to the concerns and needs of teachers and students. Furthermore, the findings underscore that both transformational leadership and digital instructional leadership independently contribute to AI implementation in schools. Notably, the interplay between the two leadership approaches is uniquely important: together, they highlight the effectiveness of ambidextrous leadership in driving AI integration in schools. The study's findings have profound implications for education policy and leadership development. They argue for a nuanced understanding of the digital mindset and its components in leadership development programs. This aligns with the broader educational goal of preparing students for a future where AI in education is increasingly prevalent (Pelletier et al., [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref298">127</reflink>]; Robert & Muscanell, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref299">138</reflink>]).</p> <p>The findings of our study also have implications for educational and administrative practice. From an organizational perspective, institutional decision-makers, such as school leaders, should develop comprehensive institutional strategies and policies to guide the process of integrating AI in educational institutions (Pratschke, [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref300">133</reflink>]). This includes the initiation and support of teachers' professional development in AI for teaching practices (Ifenthaler et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref301">80</reflink>]). In order to adequately assist their students in improving their AI literacy and become responsible and active citizens and users of AI in various contexts, including education, daily life, and work, educators themselves must also possess the necessary competencies related to AI (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib165" id="ref302">165</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib166" id="ref303">166</reflink>]; Vuorikari et al., [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref304">171</reflink>]). Instruments designed to assess teachers' self-perceptions of their AI literacy (Delcker et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref305">40</reflink>]) and performance-based AI literacy scales may serve as an orientation for adequate professional development on AI in education, pending further development and testing (Lintner, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref306">100</reflink>]). Moreover, the critical issue of accessibility to AI-based tools in educational settings must be addressed (Mishra et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref307">114</reflink>]).</p> <p>With regard to research on the topic, it should be noted that, according to our results, school leaders' mindsets accounts for nearly one-third of the explained variance of AI implementation in schools. This is substantial. How school leaders think about themselves in the context of digitalization has a major impact on their leadership behavior and determines whether schools will be at the forefront of AI. Here, too, the results of this study are in line with the assumption that the digital mindset is considered to be a key driver of digitalization (Hildebrandt & Beimborn, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref308">72</reflink>]; Kane, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref309">82</reflink>]; Witthöft et al., [<reflink idref="bib175" id="ref310">175</reflink>]) and thus provides additional empirical evidence. Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to demonstrate a corresponding association empirically in- and outside the field of education. It highlights the importance of considering the complexity involved in implementing AI in schools: nearly 50% of the variance in AI implementation across schools could be attributed to previously unexplored factors introduced here for the first time—that is, a digital mindset and ambidextrous leadership in schools.</p> <p>This also illustrates the importance of introducing innovative theoretical models and assumptions into the educational discourse—particularly during periods of digital disruption—and subjecting them to empirical investigation. Future research, further, should include a greater variety of states across the country, international perspectives, and different educational settings. For example, the perspective of higher education institutions and their change management could support digital change management in schools, at least some aspects of which may be adequate to adaptation. In addition, longitudinal studies could provide deeper insights into the long-term impact of leadership dimension and digital mindsets on AI integration in education. Examining the specific challenges and opportunities presented by different AI technologies, such as generative AI tools (Fengchun & Homes, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref311">47</reflink>]; Yusuf et al., [<reflink idref="bib177" id="ref312">177</reflink>]), could also provide valuable perspectives on tailored leadership strategies for effective technology integration. Further, the perspective of teachers should be investigated, for example, regarding the development of AI skills for teaching and learning (Celik, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref313">23</reflink>]; Long & Magerko, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref314">102</reflink>]; Mah, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref315">104</reflink>]).</p> <p>In conclusion, this study makes a significant contribution to understanding the dynamic interplay between school leadership and AI implementation. It paves the way for future explorations of the evolving landscape of AI in education and highlights the need for adaptive, empathetic, and proactive leadership in the digital age.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-29">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to thank the Lower Saxony State Institute for Quality Development in Schools (NLQ) and the school leaders who took part in our study. Their contributions were essential to the success of our research. In particular, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to Hanna Knoop and Sebastian Dräger for their indispensable support, without which this work would not have been possible.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-30">Author contributions</hd> <p>Marcus Pietsch: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis and investigation, Writing—original draft preparation, Writing—review and editing, Funding acquisition, Resources: Dana-Kristin Mah: Conceptualization, Formal analysis and investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-31">Funding</hd> <p>Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Marcus Pietsch is supported by a Heisenberg Professorship of the German Research Foundation (DFG, grant number: 451458391) and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, grant number: 03IHS284A).</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-32">Data availability</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0185099442-33">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0185099442-34"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref16" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Achtziger A, Gollwitzer PMHeckhausen J, Heckhausen H. Motivation and volition in the course of action. Motivation and action. 2018; Springer: 272-295</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref8" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Allen SJ. On the cutting edge or the chopping block? Fostering a digital mindset and tech literacy in business management education. Journal of Management Education. 2020; 44; 3: 362-393</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref40" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Arnold, K. E, & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course signals at Purdue: using learning analytics to increase student success. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK '12), 267–270.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref44" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arslan Y, Sumuer E. What do empirical studies on technology leadership in education tell us? Content analysis, bibliometric analysis, and text mining. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2024. 10.1080/15391523.2024.2398534</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref50" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker M. The roles of models in Artificial Intelligence and Education research: A prospective view. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 2000; 11: 122-143</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref124" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bass BM. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics. 1990; 18; 3: 19-31. 10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref126" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bass BM, Avolio BJ. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly. 1993; 17: 112-121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref266" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bass B, Avolio B. MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire. 1995; Mind Garden</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref125" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bass BM, Riggio REHickman GR. The transformational model of leadership. Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era. 20102; SAGE: 76-86</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bellas F, Guerreiro-Santalla S, Naya M, Duro RJ. AI curriculum for European high schools: An embedded intelligence approach. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 2023; 33; 2: 399-426. 10.1007/s40593-022-00315-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bellibaş MŞ, Kılınç AÇ, Polatcan M. The moderation role of transformational leadership in the effect of instructional leadership on teacher professional learning and instructional practice: An integrated leadership perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2021; 57; 5: 776-814. 10.1177/0013161X211035079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berkovich I. The great resignation: Exploring the effect of regular and digital instructional leadership on teachers' intention to leave. Management in Education. 2023. 10.1177/08920206231163984</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berkovich I, Eyal O. Educational leaders and emotions: An international review of empirical evidence 1992–2012. Review of Educational Research. 2015; 85; 1: 129-167. 10.3102/0034654314550046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berkovich I, Hassan T. School leaders' digital instructional leadership during the pandemic: Impact on teachers' intrinsic motivation and students' learning. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2022. 10.1177/17411432221113411</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berkovich I, Hassan T. School leaders' digital transformational leadership, teachers' commitment, and school effectiveness. Education Inquiry. 2023. 10.1080/20004508.2023.2173705</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bewersdorff A, Zhai X, Roberts J, Nerdel C. Myths, mis- and preconceptions of artificial intelligence: A review of the literature. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2023. 10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100143</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bianchi F, Kalluri P, Durmus E, Ladhak F, Cheng M, Nozza D, Hashimoto T, Jurafsky D, Zou J, Caliskan A. Easily accessible text-to-image generation amplifies demographic stereotypes at large scale. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 2023. 10.1145/3593013.3594095</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blömeke S, Nilsen T, Scherer R. School innovativeness is associated with enhanced teacher collaboration, innovative classroom practices, and job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2021; 113; 8: 1645-1667. 10.1037/edu0000668</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bond, M, Khosravi, H, de Laat, M, Bergdahl, N, Negrea, V, Oxley, E, Pham, P, Chong, S. W, & Siemens, G. (2023). A Meta Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour (Preprint).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boyce J, Bowers AJ. Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as leadership for learning: Meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years. Journal of Educational Administration. 2018; 56; 2: 161-182. 10.1108/JEA-06-2016-0064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown JL, Agnew NM. Corporate agility. Business Horizons. 1982; 25; 2: 29-33. 10.1016/0007-6813(82)90101-X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burnette JL, O'Boyle EH, VanEpps EM, Pollack JM, Finkel EJ. Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin. 2013; 139; 3: 655-701. 10.1037/a0029531</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Celik I. Towards Intelligent-TPACK: An empirical study on teachers' professional knowledge to ethically integrate artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools into education. Computers in Human Behavior. 2023; 138. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107468107468</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Celik I, Dindar M, Muukkonen H, Järvelä S. The promises and challenges of artificial intelligence for teachers: A systematic review of research. TechTrends. 2022; 66; 4: 616-630. 10.1007/s11528-022-00715-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chakravarty A, Grewal R, Sambamurthy V. Information technology competencies, organizational agility, and firm performance: Enabling and facilitating roles. Information Systems Research. 2013; 24; 4: 976-997. 10.1287/isre.2013.0500</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheng ECK, Wang T. Leading digital transformation and eliminating barriers for teachers to incorporate artificial intelligence in basic education in Hong Kong. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2023. 10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung GW, Cooper-Thomas HD, Lau RS, Wang LC. Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2024; 41; 2: 745-783. 10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chiu TKF. A holistic approach to the design of artificial intelligence (AI) education for K-12 schools. TechTrends. 2021; 65; 5: 796-807. 10.1007/s11528-021-00637-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christensen R, Eichhorn K, Prestridge S, Petko D, Sligte H, Baker R, Knezek G. Supporting learning leaders for the effective integration of technology into schools. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. 2018; 23: 457-472. 10.1007/s10758-018-9385-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connolly C, O'Brien E, O'Ceallaigh TJ. Ensuring knowledge sustainability in a digital era: Empowering digital transformation through digital educational leadership. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. 2023. 10.1007/s10758-023-09707-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coplan A. Will the real empathy please stand up? A case for a narrow conceptualization. The Southern Journal of Philosophy. 2011; 49: 40-65. 10.1111/j.2041-6962.2011.00056.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cotton DRE, Cotton PA, Shipway JR. Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2023. 10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuff BM, Brown SJ, Taylor L, Howat DJ. Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review. 2016; 8; 2: 144-153. 10.1177/1754073914558466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels E, Hondeghem A, Dochy F. A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational Research Review. 2019; 27: 110-125. 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis MH. Measuring individual-differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983; 44: 113-126. 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davitt, S. J. (2008). An exploratory study of school leader innovativeness and leadership behavior (Doctoral dissertation). University of Oregon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Day C, Gu Q, Sammons P. The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2016; 52; 2: 221-258. 10.1177/0013161X15616863</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dedering K, Pietsch M. School leader trust and collective teacher innovativeness: On individual and organisational ambidexterity's mediating role. Educational Review. 2023. 10.1080/00131911.2023.2195593</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deinert A, Homan AC, Boer D, Voelpel SC, Gutermann D. Transformational leadership sub-dimensions and their link to leaders' personality and performance. The Leadership Quarterly. 2015; 26; 6: 1095-1120. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delcker J, Heil J, Ifenthaler D. Evidence-based development of an instrument for the assessment of teachers' self-perceptions of their artificial intelligence competence. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2024. 10.1007/S11423-024-10418-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Den Hartog DN, House RJ, Hanges PJ, Antonio Ruiz-Quintanilla S, Dorfman PW. Culture specific and crossculturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?. The Leadership Quarterly. 1999; 10; 2: 219-252. 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00018-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dexter S, Richardson JW. What does technology integration research tell us about the leadership of technology?. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2020; 52; 1: 17-36. 10.1080/15391523.2019.1668316</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology. 2014; 105; 3: 399-412. 10.1111/bjop.12046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duwe J. Ambidextrous leadership: How leaders unlock innovation through ambidexterity. 2021; Springer Nature</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eden R, Burton-Jones A, Casey V, Draheim M. Digital transformation requires workforce transformation. MIS Quarterly Executive. 2019; 18; 1: 1-17. 10.17705/2msqe.00005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edmonds RR. Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership. 1979; 37; 1: 15-24</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fengchun, M, & Homes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson R, Clow D. Where is the evidence? A call to action for learning analytics. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 2017. 10.1145/3027385.3027396</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finsaas MC, Goldstein BL. Do simple slopes follow- up tests lead us astray? Advancements in the visualization and reporting of interactions. Psychological Methods. 2021; 26; 1: 38-60. 10.1037/met0000266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraillon J, Ainley J, Schulz W, Friedman T, Duckworth D. Preparing for life in a digital world. Springer International Publishing. 2020. 10.1007/978-3-030-38781-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fullan M, Azorín C, Harris A, Jones M. Artificial intelligence and school leadership: Challenges, opportunities and implications. School Leadership & Management. 2023. 10.1080/13632434.2023.2246856</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fütterer T, Scherer R, Scheiter K, Stürmer K, Lachner A. Will, skills, or conscientiousness: What predicts teachers' intentions to participate in technology-related professional development?. Computers & Education. 2023. 10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2023.104756</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gatignon H, Xuereb JM. Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research. 1997; 34; 1: 77-90. 10.1177/002224379703400107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ghosh S, Hughes M, Hodgkinson I, Hughes P. Digital transformation of industrial businesses: A dynamic capability approach. Technovation. 2022. 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102414</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods. 2013; 16; 1: 15-31. 10.1177/1094428112452151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldring E, Porter A, Murphy J, Elliott SN, Cravens X. Assessing learning-centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards, and current practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools. 2009; 8; 1: 1-36. 10.1080/15700760802014951</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldsmith RE. Using the domain specific innovativeness scale to identify innovative internet consumers. Internet Research. 2001; 11; 2: 149-158. 10.1108/10662240110695098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gouda GK, Tiwari B. Ambidextrous leadership: A distinct pathway to build talent agility and engagement. Human Resource Development International. 2023. 10.1080/13678868.2022.2163101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grassini S. Shaping the future of education: Exploring the potential and consequences of AI and ChatGPT in educational settings. Education Sciences. 2023; 13; 7: 692. 10.3390/educsci13070692</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grissom JA, Egalite AJ, Lindsay CA. How school leaders affect students and schools. 2021; Wallace Foundation</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gumus S, Bellibas MS, Esen M, Gumus E. A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2018; 46; 1: 25-48. 10.1177/1741143216659296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo Z, Yan J, Wang X, Zhen J. Ambidextrous leadership and employee work outcomes: A paradox theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01661</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hallinger P. Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education. 2003; 33; 3: 329-352. 10.1080/0305764032000122005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hallinger P, Gümüş S, Bellibaş MŞ. 'Are school leaders instructional leaders yet?'A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940–2018. Scientometrics. 2020; 122; 3: 1629-1650. 10.1007/s11192-020-03360-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hallinger P, Murphy J. Assessing the instructional management behavior of school leaders. The Elementary School Journal. 1985; 86; 2: 217-247. 10.1086/461445</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hallinger P, Wang W-C. Assessing instructional leadership with the School leader Instructional Management Rating Scale. 2015; Springer</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harman HH. Modern Factor Analysis. 1960; University of Chicago Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hassan T, Berkovich I. Digital instructional leadership in schools facing different levels of challenging contexts: A survey study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Management in Education. 2023. 10.1177/08920206231207586</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes AF. Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs. 2018; 85; 1: 4-40. 10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes AF, Coutts JJ. Use omega rather than Cronbach's alpha for estimating reliability. Communication Methods and Measures. 2020; 14; 1: 1-24. 10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heinitz K, Liepmann D, Felfe J. Examining the factor structure of the MLQ. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2005; 21; 3: 182-190. 10.1027/1015-5759.21.3.182</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hildebrandt, Y, & Beimborn, D. (2021). The intangible key for digitalization: Conceptualizing and measuring the "digital mindset". Proceedings of the 2021 on Computers and People Research Conference, https://doi.org/10.1145/3458026.3462152.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hildebrandt Y, Valta M, Beimborn D. Quantifying the digital innovation Mindset: Development of a measurement instrument. Proceedings of the Conference on Computers and People Research. 2022. 10.1145/3510606.3550202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan R, Kaiser RB. What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology. 2005; 9; 2: 169-180. 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holmes W, Porayska-Pomsta K, Holstein K, Sutherland E, Baker T, Shum SB, Santos OC, Rodrigo MT, Cukurova M, Bittencourt II, Koedinger KR. Ethics of AI in Education: Towards a community-wide framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 2022; 32; 3: 504-526. 10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hopcan S, Türkmen G, Polat E. Exploring the artificial intelligence anxiety and machine learning attitudes of teacher candidates. Education and Information Technologies. 2023. 10.1007/s10639-023-12086-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsu PS, Sharma P. A case study of enabling factors in the technology integration change process. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2008; 11; 4: 213-228</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999; 6; 1: 1-55. 10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes JS. Support for the domain specificity of implicit beliefs about persons, intelligence, and morality. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015; 86: 195-203. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ifenthaler D. Are Higher Education Institutions Prepared for Learning Analytics?. TechTrends. 2017; 61; 4: 366-371. 10.1007/s11528-016-0154-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ifenthaler D, Egloffstein M. Development and implementation of a maturity model of digital transformation. TechTrends. 2020; 64; 2: 302-309. 10.1007/s11528-019-00457-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kane G. The technology fallacy: People are the real key to digital transformation. Research-Technology Management. 2019; 62; 6: 44-49. 10.1080/08956308.2019.1661079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan-Rakowski R, Grotewold K, Hartwick P, Papin K. Generative AI and teachers' perspectives on its implementation in education. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 2023; 34; 2: 313-338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karakose T, Tülübaş T, Papadakis S, Yirci R. Evaluating the intellectual structure of the knowledge base on transformational school leadership: A bibliometric and science mapping analysis. Education Sciences. 2023. 10.3390/educsci13070708</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kasneci E, Sessler K, Küchemann S, Bannert M, Dementieva D, Fischer F, Gasser U, Groh G, Günnemann S, Hüllermeier E, Krusche S, Kutyniok G, Michaeli T, Nerdel C, Pfeffer J, Poquet O, Sailer M, Schmidt A, Seidel T, Kasneci G. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences. 2023; 103: 1-13. 10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaya-Kasikci S, Zayim-Kurtay M, Kondakci Y. The role of leadership in developing a climate of technology integration in public schools. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2023; 132. 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104234104234</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein A, Moosbrugger H. Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika. 2000; 65; 4: 457-474. 10.1007/BF02296338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klonek FE, Gerpott FH, Parker SK. A conceptual replication of ambidextrous leadership theory: An experimental approach. The Leadership Quarterly. 2023; 34; 4. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101473101473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohnke L, Moorhouse BL, Zou D. Exploring generative artificial intelligence preparedness among university language instructors: A case study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2023. 10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kovačević J, Hallinger P. Leading school change and improvement: A bibliometric analysis of the knowledge base (1960–2017). Journal of Educational Administration. 2019; 57; 6: 635-657. 10.1108/JEA-02-2019-0018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krille, C. (2020). Teachers' Participation in Professional Development A Systematic Review. In Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://link.springer.com/book/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38844-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwan P. Is transformational leadership theory passé? Revisiting the integrative effect of instructional leadership and transformational leadership on student outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2020; 56; 2: 321-349. 10.1177/0013161X19861137</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lance CE, Dawson B, Birkelbach D, Hoffman BJ. Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods. 2010; 13; 3: 435-455. 10.1177/1094428109352528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leithwood K. Strong districts and their leadership. 2012; Council of Ontario Directors of Education</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leithwood K, Day C. Successful school leader leadership in times of change: An international perspective. 2007; Springer</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leithwood K, Harris A, Hopkins D. Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management. 2020; 40; 1: 5-22. 10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leithwood K, Jantzi D. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration. 2000; 38; 2: 112-129. 10.1108/09578230010320064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leithwood K, Jantzi D. Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2006; 17; 2: 201-227. 10.1080/09243450600565829</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis MW, Andriopoulos C, Smith WK. Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. California Management Review. 2014; 56; 3: 58-77. 10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.58</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lintner T. A systematic review of AI literacy scales. Npj Science of Learning. 2024. 10.1038/s41539-024-00264-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lo CK. What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences. 2023; 13; 4: 410. 10.3390/educsci13040410</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Long, D, & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorenz, U, & Romeike, R. (2023). What Is AI-PACK? – Outline of AI Competencies for Teaching with DPACK. SSEP 2023: Informatics in Schools. Beyond Bits and Bytes: Nurturing Informatics Intelligence in Education, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44900-0_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mah, D.-K. (2023, June 3). Beyond the hype: Integrating ChatGPT and co. into university teaching | AI Campus. https://ki-campus.org/blog/chatgpt-hochschullehre?locale=en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mah D-K. Learning analytics and digital badges: Potential impact on student retention in higher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. 2016; 21; 3: 285-305. 10.1007/s10758-016-9286-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mah D-K, Groß N. Artificial intelligence in higher education: Exploring faculty use, self-efficacy, distinct profiles, and professional development needs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2024; 21; 1: 58. 10.1186/s41239-024-00490-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mao J, Chen B, Liu JC. Generative artificial intelligence in education and its implications for assessment. TechTrends. 2023. 10.1007/s11528-023-00911-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markauskaite L, Marrone R, Poquet O, Knight S, Martinez-Maldonado R, Howard S, Siemens G. Rethinking the entwinement between artificial intelligence and human learning: What capabilities do learners need for a world with AI?. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2022; 3: 100056. 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marks HM, Printy SM. School leader leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2003; 39; 3: 370-397. 10.1177/0013161X03253412</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslowsky J, Jager J, Hemken D. Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2015; 39; 1: 87-96. 10.1177/0165025414552301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCarthy AM, Maor D, McConney A, Cavanaugh C. Digital transformation in education: Critical components for leaders of system change. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2023. 10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100479</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLeod S. Facilitating administrators' instructional leadership through the use of a technology integration discussion protocol. Journal of Research on Leadership Education. 2015; 10; 3: 227-233. 10.1177/1942775115623393</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLeod S, Richardson JWMilitello M, Friend JI. Supporting effective technology integration and implementation. Principal 2.0: Technology and educational leadership. 2013; Information Age Publishing: 249-272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mishra P, Warr M, Islam R. TPACK in the age of ChatGPT and Generative AI. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. 2023; 39; 4: 235-251. 10.1080/21532974.2023.2247480</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muijs D, Harris A, Lumby J, Morrison M, Sood K. Leadership and leadership development in highly effective further education providers. Is there a relationship?. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2006; 30; 1: 87-106. 10.1080/03098770500432096</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User's Guide. 2017; Muthén & Muthén</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Navaridas-Nalda F, Clavel-San Emeterio M, Fernández-Ortiz R, Arias-Oliva M. The strategic influence of school leader leadership in the digital transformation of schools. Computers in Human Behavior. 2020; 112. 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106481106481</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neumerski CM. Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2013; 49; 2: 310-347. 10.1177/0013161X12456700</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng DTK, Leung JKL, Chu SKW, Qiao MS. Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2021; 2. 10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041100041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng DTK, Leung JKL, Su MJ, Yim IHY, Qiao MS, Chu SKW. AI literacy in K-16 classrooms. Springer International Publishing. 2022. 10.1007/978-3-031-18880-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nguyen A, Ngo HN, Hong Y, Dang B, Nguyen BPT. Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education. Education and Information Technologies. 2023; 28; 4: 4221-4241. 10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nordström M. AI under great uncertainty: Implications and decision strategies for public policy. AI & Society. 2022; 37; 4: 1703-1714. 10.1007/s00146-021-01263-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Northouse PG. Leadership: Theory and Practice. 2010; Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pabst von Ohain, B. A. (2023). Leadership for Digital Transformation (Doctoral dissertation). TUM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelletier, K, Brown, M, Brooks, D. C, McCormack, M, Reeves, J, Arbino, N, Bozkurt, A, Crawford, S, Czerniewicz, L, Gibson, R, Linder, K, Mason, J, & Mondelli, V. (2021). 2021 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report. Teaching and Learning Edition.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelletier, K, Brown, M, Brooks, D. C, McCormack, M, Reeves, J, Arbino, N, Bozkurt, A, Crawford, S, Czerniewicz, L, Gibson, R, Linder, K, Mason, J, & Mondelli, V. (2021). 2021 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report. Teaching and Learning Edition.https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2021/4/2021hrteachinglearning.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelletier, K, Rober, J, Muscanell, N, McCormack, M, Reeves, J, Arbino, N, Grajek, S, Birdwell, T, Liu, D, Mandernach, J, Moore, A, Porcaro, A, Rutledge, R, & Zimmern, J. (2023). 2023 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report, Teaching and Learning Edition. https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2023/4/2023hrteachinglearning.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Philip J. Viewing digital transformation through the lens of transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce. 2021; 31; 2: 114-129. 10.1080/10919392.2021.1911573</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pietsch M, Aydin B, Gümüş S. Putting the instructional leadership-student achievement relation in context: A meta-analytical big data study across cultures and time. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2023. 10.3102/01623737231197434</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pietsch M, Tulowitzki P. Disentangling school leadership and its ties to instructional practices–an empirical comparison of various leadership styles. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2017; 28; 4: 629-649. 10.1080/09243453.2017.1363787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pietsch M, Tulowitzki P, Cramer C. Principals between exploitation and exploration: Results of a nationwide study on ambidexterity of school leaders. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2022; 50; 4: 574-592. 10.1177/1741143220945705</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pihie ZAL, Asuimiran S, Bagheri A. Entrepreneurial leadership practices and school innovativeness. South African Journal of Education. 2014; 34; 1: 1-11. 10.15700/201412120955</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pratschke BM. Generative AI and education. Digital pedagogies, teaching innovation and learning design. 2024; Springer. 10.1007/978-3-031-67991-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pratt MG, Rockmann KW, Kaufmann JB. Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal. 2006; 49; 2: 235-262. 10.5465/amj.2006.20786060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods. 2008; 40: 879-891. 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Punie, Y, & Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC107466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rauch R. Digital mindsets: The analysis of a multidimensional construct. 2022; Springer Nature. 10.1007/978-3-658-39753-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robert, J, & Muscanell, N. (2023). 2023 EDUCAUSE Horizon Action Plan: Generative AI. https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2023/9/2023horizonactplangenai.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson VM, Lloyd CA, Rowe KJ. The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2008; 44; 5: 635-674. 10.1177/0013161X08321509</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 1995; Free Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosing K, Frese M, Bausch A. Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly. 2011; 22; 5: 956-974. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosing K, Zacher H. Individual ambidexterity: The duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2017; 26; 5: 694-709. 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1238358</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosing K, Zacher HReiter-Palmon R, Hunter S. Ambidextrous leadership: A review of theoretical developments and empirical evidence. Handbook of organizational creativity. 2023; Elsevier: 51-70. 10.1016/B978-0-323-91841-1.00013-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruloff M, Petko D. School leaders' educational goals and leadership styles for digital transformation: Results from case studies in upper secondary schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education. 2022. 10.1080/13603124.2021.2014979</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, S, & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, eBook, Global Edition. Pearson Deutschland. https://elibrary.pearson.de/book/99.150005/9781292153971</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruvio AA, Shoham A, Vigoda-Gadot E, Schwabsky N. Organizational innovativeness: Construct development and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2014; 31; 5: 1004-1022. 10.1111/jpim.12141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sammons P, Hillman J, Mortimore P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: A review of school effectiveness research. London, UK: International School Effectiveness and Improvement Centre, Institute of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanchez Corona, B. (2019). A case study of high school administrators' self-perceived readiness to be digital instructional leaders. PhD Thesis, University of Central Florida.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheerens J. School leadership effects revisited: Review and meta-analysis of empirical studies. 2012; Springer Science & Business Media</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmitz ML, Antonietti C, Consoli T, Cattaneo A, Gonon P, Petko D. Transformational leadership for technology integration in schools: Empowering teachers to use technology in a more demanding way. Computers & Education. 2023. 10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104880</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwarzmüller T, Brosi P, Duman D, Welpe IM. How does the digital transformation affect organizations? Key themes of change in work design and leadership. Management Revue. 2018; 29; 2: 114-138. 10.5771/0935-9915-2018-2-114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seufert S, Guggemos J, Sailer M. Technology-related knowledge, skills, and attitudes of pre- and in-service teachers: The current situation and emerging trends. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021. 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106552</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shepherd AC, Taylor RT. An analysis of factors which influence high school administrators' readiness and confidence to provide digital instructional leadership. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation. 2019; 14; 1: 52-76</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin D, Park YJ. Role of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance. Computers in Human Behavior. 2019; 98: 277-284. 10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siangchokyoo N, Klinger RL, Campion ED. Follower transformation as the linchpin of transformational leadership theory: A systematic review and future research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly. 2020. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101341</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh N, Jain M, Kamal MM, Bodhi R, Gupta B. Technological paradoxes and artificial intelligence implementation in healthcare. An application of paradox theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2024. 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solberg E, Traavik LE, Wong SI. Digital mindsets: Recognizing and leveraging individual beliefs for digital transformation. California Management Review. 2020; 62; 4: 105-124. 10.1177/0008125620931839</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun J, Chen X, Zhang S. A review of research evidence on the antecedents of transformational leadership. Education Sciences. 2017. 10.3390/educsci7010015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Timotheou S, Miliou O, Dimitriadis Y, Sobrino SV, Giannoutsou N, Cachia R, Ioannou A. Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and Information Technologies. 2023; 28; 6: 6695-6726. 10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Touretzky D, Gardner-McCune C, Martin F, Seehorn D. Envisioning AI for K-12: What should every child know about AI?. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2019; 33; 01: 9795-9799. 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019795</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trong Tuan L. Reform in public organizations: The roles of ambidextrous leadership and moderating mechanisms. Public Management Review. 2017; 19; 4: 518-541. 10.1080/14719037.2016.1195438</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsai Y-S, Rates D, Moreno-Marcos PM, Muñoz-Merino PJ, Jivet I, Scheffel M, Drachsler H, Delgado Kloos C, Gašević D. Learning analytics in European higher education—Trends and barriers. Computers & Education. 2020; 155. 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103933103933</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tulowitzki, P, Pietsch, M, Sposato, G, Cramer, C, & Groß Ophoff, J. (2023). Schulleitungsmonitor Deutschland. Zentrale Ergebnisse aus der Befragung 2022. Wübben Stiftung Bildung.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2012). International standard classification of education: ISCED 2011. UNESCO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. AI competency framework for students. 2024; UNESCO. 10.54675/JKJB9835</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. AI competency framework for teachers. 2024; UNESCO. 10.54675/ZJTE2084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Velander J, Taiye MA, Otero N, Milrad M. Artificial Intelligence in K-12 Education: Eliciting and reflecting on Swedish teachers' understanding of AI and its implications for teaching & learning. Education and Information Technologies. 2023. 10.1007/s10639-023-11990-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vennemann, M, Eickelmann, B, Labusch, A, & Drossel, K. (2021). ICILS 2018# Deutschland. Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente der zweiten Computer and Information Literacy Study. Waxmann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoef PC, Broekhuizen T, Bart Y, Bhattacharya A, Dong JQ, Fabian N, Haenlein M. Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research. 2021; 122: 889-901. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Volpentesta T, Spahiu E, De Giovanni P. A survey on incumbent digital transformation: A paradoxical perspective and research agenda. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2023; 26; 7: 478-501. 10.1108/EJIM-01-2023-0081</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vuorikari, R, Kluzer, S, & Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens - With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/50c53c01-abeb-11ec-83e1-01aa75ed71a1/language-en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waldman DA, Putnam LL, Miron-Spektor E, Siegel D. The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2019; 155: 1-6. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wanberg CR, Banas JT. Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2000; 85: 132-142. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang B, Rau P-LP, Yuan T. Measuring user competence in using artificial intelligence: Validity and reliability of artificial intelligence literacy scale. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2023; 42; 9: 1324-1337. 10.1080/0144929X.2022.2072768</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witthöft J, Aydin B, Pietsch M. Leading digital innovation in schools: The role of the open innovation mindset. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2024. 10.1080/15391523.2024.2398528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yammarino FJ, Dansereau F. Multi-level issues in evolutionary theory, organization science, and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly. 2011; 22; 6: 1042-1057. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yusuf A, Pervin N, Román-González M, Noor NM. Generative AI in education and research: A systematic mapping review. Review of Education. 2024. 10.1002/REV3.3489</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zacher H, Robinson A, Rosing K. Ambidextrous leadership and employees' self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. Journal of Creative Behavior. 2016; 50; 1: 24-46. 10.1002/jocb.66</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zacher H, Rosing K. Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2015; 36; 1: 54-68. 10.1108/LODJ-11-2012-0141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zadok A, Benoliel P. Middle-leaders' transformational leadership: Big five traits and teacher commitment. International Journal of Educational Management. 2023; 37; 4: 810-829</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zawacki-Richter O, Marín VI, Bond M, Gouverneur F. Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators?. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2019; 16; 1: 1-27. 10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Marcus Pietsch and Dana-Kristin Mah</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Marcus Pietsch Marcus Pietsch is a DFG-Heisenberg Professor for Educational Management and Quality Improvement at the Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany. His research focuses on using quantitative methods in the field of school effectiveness, improvement and change, with an emphasis on the interrelations of educational leadership, innovation and student learning in dynamic educational environments. For more information see: https://<ulink href="http://www.leuphana.de/en/institutes/ibiwi/personen/marcus-pietsch.html">www.leuphana.de/en/institutes/ibiwi/personen/marcus-pietsch.html</ulink></p> <p>Dana-Kristin Mah Dana-Kristin Mah is a Junior Professor for Digital Teaching and Learning at the Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany. Her research focuses on educational technologies, artificial intelligence, learning analytics, instructional design, and competencies, particularly in the field of higher education. For more information see: https://<ulink href="http://www.leuphana.de/en/institutes/ibiwi/team/dana-kristin-mah.html">www.leuphana.de/en/institutes/ibiwi/team/dana-kristin-mah.html</ulink></p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib150" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib151" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib175" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib157" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib156" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib172" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib145" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib177" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib154" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib165" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib166" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib167" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib179" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib178" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib181" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib162" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib160" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib174" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib152" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib176" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib155" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib149" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib159" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib144" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib147" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib148" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib153" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib161" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref190"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib158" firstref="ref200"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref207"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib170" firstref="ref208"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref209"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref220"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref221"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl124" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref222"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl125" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref223"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl126" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref224"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl127" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref225"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl128" bibid="bib173" firstref="ref227"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl129" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref228"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl130" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref229"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl131" bibid="bib169" firstref="ref230"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl132" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref231"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl133" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref232"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl134" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref233"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl135" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref234"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl136" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref236"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl137" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref237"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl138" bibid="bib180" firstref="ref238"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl139" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref240"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl140" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref242"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl141" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref243"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl142" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref244"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl143" bibid="bib164" firstref="ref248"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl144" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref249"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl145" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref250"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl146" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref251"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl147" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref252"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl148" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref253"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl149" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref254"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl150" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref255"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl151" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref256"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl152" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref257"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl153" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref261"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl154" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref262"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl155" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref263"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl156" bibid="bib146" firstref="ref264"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl157" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref267"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl158" bibid="bib168" firstref="ref268"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl159" bibid="bib163" firstref="ref269"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl160" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref270"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl161" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref271"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl162" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref273"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl163" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref275"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl164" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref276"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl165" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref277"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl166" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref279"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl167" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref298"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl168" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref299"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl169" bibid="bib171" firstref="ref304"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl170" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref305"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl171" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref307"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1470860
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Leading the AI Transformation in Schools: It Starts with a Digital Mindset
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marcus+Pietsch%22">Marcus Pietsch</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9836-6793">0000-0002-9836-6793</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dana-Kristin+Mah%22">Dana-Kristin Mah</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0009-0004-2106-2216">0009-0004-2106-2216</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Technology+Research+and+Development%22"><i>Educational Technology Research and Development</i></searchLink>. 2025 73(2):1043-1069.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Artificial+Intelligence%22">Artificial Intelligence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Software%22">Computer Software</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Integration%22">Technology Integration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Leadership%22">Instructional Leadership</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrator+Attitudes%22">Administrator Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Empathy%22">Empathy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Perspective+Taking%22">Perspective Taking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership+Styles%22">Leadership Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Germany%22">Germany</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11423-024-10439-w
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1042-1629<br />1556-6501
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Rapid developments in artificial intelligence (AI) require dynamic adaptation in education to integrate new technologies timely and sustainably. In particular, the rise of generative AI requires leadership to implement it in a meaningful way for teaching and learning. School leaders have a special role to play in driving digital transformation. Based on a sample of German school leaders, this article explores how school leadership approaches and a digital mindset influence the implementation of AI in schools. Our findings provide initial and preliminary evidence that school leaders' digital mindsets, particularly proactive agility and empathy, understood as perspective taking, influence the implementation of AI in schools. Furthermore, the findings highlight the effectiveness of ambidextrous leadership in driving AI implementation. As a consequence, our study paves the way for future explorations of the evolving landscape of AI in education and highlights the need for adaptive, empathetic, and proactive leadership in the digital age.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1470860
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1470860
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11423-024-10439-w
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 1043
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Artificial Intelligence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Software
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Integration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Leadership
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrator Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Empathy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Perspective Taking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leadership Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Germany
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Leading the AI Transformation in Schools: It Starts with a Digital Mindset
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marcus Pietsch
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dana-Kristin Mah
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1042-1629
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1556-6501
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 73
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Technology Research and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1