The Impact of School Heads' Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools' Digital Transformation

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITY & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH ISSN (print) 2833-2172, ISSN (online) 2833-2180 Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 DOI: 10.58806/ijsshmr.2025v4i12n10, Impact Factor: 6.79 Page No. 2286-2310 IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2286 The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation Raymond S. Abinales1, Eden C. Callo, EdD2 1Head Teacher III, DepEd Masalukot IV Elementary School,Candelaria East, 4323 Philippines 2Vice President for Academic Affairs, Laguna State Polytechnic University, San Pablo City, Laguna 4000 Philippines ABSTRACT:The school leadership holds a pivotal role in initiating and sustaining school reform. The digital world requires leaders who can motivate, adapt, and empower their people to use technology for innovation and growth. Thus, this study was designed to determine the impact of school heads’ digital leadership competence and readiness to Education 4.0 in promoting elementary school’s digital transformation. The researcher utilized a quantitative research design and a descriptive-correlational research method and was confined among public elementary school heads and teachers in Candelaria East and West District with 32 school heads and 609 teachers during the S.Y. 2024-2025. The result of the Multiple Regression Analysis identifies Innovation Management competence and Curriculum Innovation readiness as the most critical factors driving digital transformation in elementary schools, while Technological Competence provides additional but weaker contributions. These factors, significantly predict the schools’ digital transformation. Digital Communication Skills presents a negative relationship with digital transformation. KEYWORDS: Digital Leadership, Digital Transformation, Education 4.0, School Heads Technology Leadership 1. INTRODUCTION Technology has transformed the citizens’ lives. The global trend toward digitalization is causing a shift in the style of digital learning. In the period of contemporary information technology, technological products have had a significant impact on student learning, teacher preparation, and school operations. The capacity of school administrators to successfully use digital tools and technologies to improve teaching and learning is referred to in this context as "digital leadership." This is a skill that is becoming more and more valued. Education is a dynamic and innovative process. Throughout history, it has been influenced by numerous social and scientific advances, as well as changed and innovated, resulting in its current form. The relevance of developing a training plan to improve educational institutions' efficacy and defining the essential tactics for implementing those plans grows by the day. The established education plans are anticipated to help to ensure the long-term development of schools. It is vital to manage, change, and improve organizational settings, participate in decision-making, and develop learning and teaching methodologies by assessing organizational culture effectively. School leaders bear the most responsibility in this regard. Developing vision and mission, preparing and implementing school development plans and strategies, improving organizational climate, creating communities that feel a sense of belonging to the institution, keeping communication channels open, increasing and ensuring coordination, developing critical thinking skills, being innovative, and managing change are the most important competencies expected from school leaders in the twenty-first century (Cetin & Karsantik, 2022). The Fourth Industrial Revolution, often known as Industry 4.0, is the result of technological advancements. Innovative technologies have quickly revolutionized life's social, economic, ecological, and cultural dimensions and facets. The similar thing happened in the education ecosystem, where Education 4.0 was created to satisfy these new criteria while remaining relevant and effective in a constantly changing environment. It is primarily the digital transformation of school units that is required to supply vital materials to future pupils (Kin & Kareem, 2019). The role of principals is critical in the reform of schools. They are expected to reconcile external needs with the primary need for school reform and transformation, particularly in learning and teaching processes, thereby moving the crucial factor of effective leadership from thinking capacity to action ability (Kin & Kareem, 2019). Given that school leadership is a significant predictor of effective change and adaptation in Education 4.0, it is crucial to define and create new competencies for school leaders who will guide this educational revolution. Without significant advocacy from educational technology leaders, the field of education would struggle to properly integrate technology into a school system, local school site, or classroom. Thus, in order to gain the benefits The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2287 of technology, expert individuals must take on leadership roles and advocate its use for educational purposes. According to Aksal (2015), school leaders face limited opportunity to apply digital leadership in their schools due to a variety of restrictions. These include limited professional development and training time, rigid curricula, a lack of technology infrastructure, and financial limits for upgrading existing technology infrastructure. Following the COVID-19 epidemic, it is critical to emphasize digital investments in teachers, students, and parents (Suphakicco, 2022). As school leaders, they must realize the need for new skills to drive the digital revolution of education, particularly in the context of Education 4.0. The Fourth Industrial Revolution has resulted from technological advancements, transforming various elements of life. Education 4.0 is a digital transformation of educational units that necessitates competent leadership to match external demands with the core requirement for school reform and change. By developing these new skills, school principals may play an important role in promoting technology for educational objectives. Given the preceding statement, the researcher opted to pursue a more in-depth knowledge and study that attempts to investigate the unique role of school principals in the digital transformation of schools. This study investigated how school leaders' digital leadership competencies and readiness to Education 4.0 affect the digital transformation of their schools. It is critical in the community, particularly in the Candelaria area, to conduct a more thorough examination into school leaders' digital leadership competencies and preparation for Education 4.0 in supporting elementary schools’ digital transformation. This is required to build appropriate systems and procedures as input to digitalization practices in schools in the age of Education 4.0. 2. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of School Heads' Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 on promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation. Specifically, this sought to answer the following questions: 1. To what extent is the school heads’ competence with regards to digital leadership be described in terms of: a. Visionary leadership; b. Technological competence; c. Innovation management; and d. Digital communication skills? 2. To what extent is the school heads’ readiness to Education 4.0 be described in terms of: a. Adoption of emerging technologies (e.g., AI, VR, AR); b. Curriculum innovation; c. Personalized learning approaches; and d. Collaboration and networking? 3. What is the level of elementary schools’ digital transformation be described in terms of: a. Integration of digital tools in teaching; b. Digital infrastructure development; c. Teacher training and professional development; and d. Student engagement with digital learning? 4. Is there a significant difference between the perception of school heads and teachers when it comes to: a. School heads’ digital leadership; b. School heads readiness to Education 4.0; and c. Schools’ digital transformation? 5. Is there a significant relationship between the school heads’ digital leadership competence and elementary schools’ digital transformation? 6. Is there a significant relationship between the school head’s readiness to Education 4.0 and elementary school’s digital transformation? 3. METHODOLOGY The researcher utilized a quantitative research design and a descriptive-correlational research method. It is a fact-finding investigation with adequate and correct interpretation. This is used to collect data on the school head’s level of digital leadership, readiness to Education 4.0 and their impact on elementary schools’ digital transformation. The study used quantitative research to analyze and interpret the predictor and criterion variables. All data were analyzed, organized, and interpreted using descriptive and inferential statistics. This is the most appropriate method for this type of research. This study focused on public elementary school heads and teachers in the Candelaria East and West Districts in Candelaria, Quezon. The number of respondents was predetermined and selected through stratified random sampling. This strategy divides the entire population into homogeneous groupings known as strata. Then, random samples were drawn from each stratum. A total of The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2288 32 elementary school heads and 609 teachers became the respondents of the study. The researcher's survey questionnaire was the primary tool used in gathering the needed data. The instrument was organized into four sections. The breakdown is as follows: Part I. This section determines the extent is the level of school heads’ competence with regards to digital leadership domains such as visionary leadership, technological competence, innovation management, and digital communication skills. This part is consisting of 20 items to which respondents will answer on a scale of 5 – Fully Demonstrated, 4 – Significantly Demonstrated, 3 – Somehow Demonstrated, 2 – Minimally Demonstrated, 1 – Not Demonstrated. Part II. This part assesses the school head’s readiness to Education 4.0 when it comes to adoption of emerging technologies (e.g., AI, VR, AR), curriculum innovation, personalized learning approaches, and collaboration and networking. This part has 20 items to which respondents will respond on a scale of 5 – Fully Demonstrated, 4 – Significantly Demonstrated, 3 – Somehow Demonstrated, 2 – Minimally Demonstrated, 1 – Not Demonstrated. Part III. This portion of the questionnaire evaluates the level of school’s digital transformation through getting the perception of the respondents when it comes to their school’s integration of digital tools in teaching, digital infrastructure development, teacher training and professional development, and student engagement with digital learning. This has 20 items to which respondents will reply on a scale of 5 – Always Observed, 4 – Often Observed, 3 – Sometimes Observed, 2 - Rarely Observed, and 1–Never Observed. The researcher underwent the following step-by-step procedures: First, the researcher sought the panel experts' approval to conduct the study and hoped to defend the concepts successfully. Second, the researcher prepared a letter for the school's division superintendent, district supervisors, principals, and school heads, requesting their authorization to conduct the study in their respective schools. After the school administrators' approval, the researcher finally conducted the study. The questionnaires and letters to the respondents were created and disseminated by the researcher via Google Forms through Messenger to quickly distribute and retrieve the instruments. The researcher retrieved the instrument thereafter. Subsequently, the researcher gathered the data from the online survey. After gathering the data, the researcher managed and analyzed it thoroughly. The data generated from the Google form were summarized and organized before being submitted to the statistician. The statistician thereafter treated the data and guided the researcher in constructing the tables for presentation. Honesty in reporting is an ethical standard for conducting the study. The researcher ensured the confidentiality of the respondent’s information. To assess the validity of the content, the researcher submitted the survey instrument to his adviser and other panel members for corrections and suggestions for its enhancement to ensure the accuracy of the questionnaire. To examine the reliability, a pilot testing was conducted to 20 teachers before the actual study. After pilot testing, the researcher used Cronbach’s Alpha to measure the instrument's internal consistency. Data about the digital leadership competence of school heads, school head’s readiness to Education 4.0, and the level of school’s digital transformation were gathered using the combined self-made questionnaire and other online sources. Responses were measured using a 5-point Likert Scale. It was analyzed and interpreted using Mean, Standard Deviation, and their Verbal Interpretation. For inferential statistics, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if there is significant difference between the responses of the 2 sets of respondents: the school heads and teachers. Pearson r was utilized to determine the correlation between variables. To determine the strength of the association, Cohen's (1988) Interpretation of the r-values was employed. For the regression analysis, Multiple Linear Regression Analysis was used to determine the strength of the variables. It is a statistical technique used to predict the value of a continuous dependent variable based on the values of two or more independent variables often called "predictors". RESULTS AND DISCUSSION PART I. SCHOOL HEAD'S DIGITAL LEADERSHIP COMPETENCE Table 1 Level of School Heads’ Digital Leadership in Terms of Visionary Leadership Statements Mean SD Verbal Interpretation The school head… 1. promotes the participation of school stakeholders in the technology planning process of school. 4.14 .826 Significantly Demonstrated 2. aligns the school technology plan with other plans, including district strategic plans, 4.55 .817 Fully Demonstrated The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2289 school improvement plans and other instructional plans. 3. leads the implementation of a shared vision for comprehensive integration of technology to promote excellence. 4.09 .800 Significantly Demonstrated 4. evaluates progress, makes course corrections, measures impact of technology to transform learning. 4.15 .749 Significantly Demonstrated 5. includes a wide range of perspectives to sustain a vision for digitalization to advance student learning and success. 4.12 .813 Significantly Demonstrated OVERALL 4.21 .738 Significantly Demonstrated Legend: 4.50-5.00 – Fully Demonstrated 3.50-4.49 – Significantly Demonstrated 2.50-3.49 – Sometimes Demonstrated 1.50-2.49 – Minimally Demonstrated 1.00-1.49 – Not Demonstrated Table 1 reveals the extent to which school heads’ competence in digital leadership is described in terms of Visionary Leadership. This table shows that the 32 school heads of Candelaria East and West District frequently communicate information about their school's technology planning and implementation efforts to their school's stakeholders, demonstrating their vision and leadership for technology usage and expansion in school, with a verbal interpretation of "Significantly Demonstrated" and a general mean score of 4.21. It shows that school leaders are capable of supporting and directing the school on its current route while also establishing a vision for future development. Education leaders can collaborate with teachers and the community to plan a learning environment that prepares students for a constantly changing world. It demonstrates that school leaders consistently participate in the development and implementation of a forward-thinking vision. This implies that they are lobbying for policies, initiatives, and financial opportunities that will help schools implement their technology plans. They always include significant technology-related initiatives and plans in their vision sharing and in crafting their School Improvement Plan (SIP), Annual Improvement Plan’s (AIP) Programs, Projects, and Activities (PPAs), Learning Continuity Plans (LCPs), and in their ways forward. The highest indicator that states that the school administrators or principals always aligns the school technology plan with other plans, including district strategic plans, school improvement plans, and other instructional plans got a verbal interpretation of “Fully Demonstrated,” as it accumulated a mean score of 4.55. The Department of Education is committed to accelerate the delivery of basic education facilities and services. The office announced the launching of the DepEd Digital Education 2028 or “DepEd DigiEd 2028” last January 2024. And since the school heads in Candelaria East are one with DepEd’s mission in addressing the challenges in digital learning and education technology, they always aligned their technology plans with their school plans. Some of these technology plans are upskilling the teachers through training and workshops with ICT-assisted teaching that aims to provide teachers with equipment, software content, and skills for their daily classroom teaching; and optimizing the use of technology while ensuring its responsible and ethical use, especially with the world exploring Artificial Intelligence in both teaching and learning. It shows that the school heads’ alignment of their technology plans is not just present or partially done, but is consistently, comprehensively, and effectively carried out. It implies a high level of integration and coherence between the technology plan and the broader strategic and instructional goals of the school, district and the DepEd Central Office. In the locale, some of the technology planning processes attended and organized by the school heads were manifested in their yearly Office Performance Commitment and Review Form (OPCRF), included in their 3-year School Improvement Plan (SIP), Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) PPAs, and are aligned with the SDO Quezon’s Project KALILAYAN and DepEd’s newly laid-out 5-point Agenda. This constitutes different programs and projects related to technology improvement and competency enhancement of teachers and school heads. According to Woods and Roberts (2019), Visionary Leadership in the education era emphasizes the importance of the principal's role as an educational leader in looking ahead and seizing future opportunities, which include the ability to think critically, collaborate, communicate, be creative in all global connections, and use technology and learning tools (Huma et al. 2023). Furthermore, Visionary Leadership communicates the path of future development to organizational members, motivating followers to incorporate the leader into themselves and become more proactive at work (Liu, 2022). Thus, it is an effective technique for preparing for resilience, tolerance, and innovative ideas that create room for new advances and meet educational aims and objectives (Kadir et al., 2020). The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2290 Table 2 Level of School Heads’ Digital Leadership in Terms of Technological Competence Statements Mean SD Verbal Interpretation The school head… 1. uses integrated technology-based management and operations systems. 4.19 .831 Significantly Demonstrated 2. sets goals to remain current on emerging technologies for learning, innovations in pedagogy and advancements. 4.23 .834 Significantly Demonstrated 3. participates regularly in online professional learning networks to collaboratively learn with and mentor other professionals. 4.12 .861 Significantly Demonstrated 4. uses technology to regularly engage in reflective practices that support personal and professional growth. 4.20 .820 Significantly Demonstrated 5. stays abreast of educational research and emerging trends regarding effective use of technology 4.11 .847 Significantly Demonstrated OVERALL 4.17 .751 Significantly Demonstrated Legend: 4.50-5.00 – Fully Demonstrated 3.50-4.49 – Significantly Demonstrated 2.50-3.49 – Sometimes Demonstrated 1.50-2.49 – Minimally Demonstrated 1.00-1.49 – Not Demonstrated Table 2 indicates the level of school heads’ proficiency with regards to digital leadership be described in terms of Technological Competence. As shown in the table, the degree of the school leaders’ knowledge in the use technology to engage in regular reflective activities that promote personal and professional development is often observed and was described as “Significantly Demonstrated” and got an overall mean of 4.17. It means that school leaders effectively use technology for school management and operations. They proactively set goals to stay current with new educational technologies, teaching methods, and advancements. These leaders regularly engage in online professional learning networks to collaborate with and mentor other educators. Furthermore, they continuously keep up-to-date with educational research and emerging trends on how to use technology in schools best. The school heads evidently set goals to remain current on emerging technologies for learning, innovations in pedagogy, and advancements, which means it is “Significantly Demonstrated” with the highest mean score of 4.23. This is evident since they are articulating a forward-thinking vision for how technology and innovative pedagogies will transform learning within their school. This vision isn't just about tools but about enhancing student learning outcomes and preparing students for the future. Some of the school heads collaboratively create detailed strategic plans that outline how technology will be integrated into the curriculum, instruction, and administrative processes as well. This includes setting specific, measurable goals related to technology adoption, professional development, and student skill development. In Candelaria, school heads encourage the teachers to join in the different trainings that will enhance their technology skills such as the Google for Education series of trainings and workshop especially now in the era of the Artificial Intelligence. This might be because school heads in Candelaria Districts believe that in an evolving educational landscape, schools that embrace innovation are often perceived as progressive and attractive to parents and students. School heads understand that staying current helps their institutions remain competitive and at the forefront of educational best practices. The modern world is increasingly driven by technology. School heads recognize that students need to be equipped with digital literacy, critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration skills, which are often fostered through the effective use of technology and innovative pedagogies. Digitalization will provide challenges to future leadership practices. To effectively manage their teams in the future, leaders must grasp how to stay up with the rising obstacles brought on by the digital age. The most successful digital transition begins with a shift in leaders' attitudes, which they must anticipate (Kane, 2019). Digital leadership enables institutions to attain the best teamwork and management practices, both of which are critical for the growth of global high-tech educational practices among instructors (Temelkova, 2018). According to Sheninger (2014), some school administrators are still hesitant to adopt digital technologies, such as social media, and misunderstand the benefits of using digital gadgets. Some principals lack ICT and digital technology competencies. According to Leong et al. (2016), there is a link between principals' understanding of technology integration and their ability to drive themselves to adopt whole-school improvements. Van Niekerk and Van Wyk (2014) further claim that it is the principal's responsibility to initiate and sustain the integrated use of technology in education by modeling and implementing technology into daily management and administrative activities. Karahan et al. (2015) found that school administrators must adapt to technological developments, as these developments will continue to occur. Table 3 illustrates the school heads' digital leadership competence as described in their Innovation Management. The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2291 As shown in the table above, it has been revealed that the respondents’ perception of the level of school heads’ digital leadership in terms of Innovation Management is “Significantly Demonstrated” as it gained a total mean score of 4.21. The statement with the highest mean of 4.28 stated that most school heads ensure all students learn from educators who are skilled in using technology to create authentic and engaging learning experiences. It was interpreted as “Significantly Demonstrated.” Table 3 Level of School Heads’ Digital Leadership in Terms of Innovation Management Mean SD Verbal Interpretation The school head… 1. guides teams to establish equitable technology policies that support effective learning. 4.20 .821 Significantly Demonstrated 2. ensures equitable access to appropriate digital tools and resources to meet the needs of all learners 4.24 .822 Significantly Demonstrated 3. ensures all students learn from educators who are skilled in using technology to create authentic and engaging learning experiences. 4.28 .871 Significantly Demonstrated 4. creates, promotes, and sustains a dynamic digital age learning culture that provides a rigorous, relevant, and engaging education for all students. 4.17 .834 Significantly Demonstrated 5. ensures that resources and infrastructure for supporting effective use of technology for learning are sufficient to meet future demand. 4.17 .865 Significantly Demonstrated OVERALL 4.21 .788 Significantly Demonstrated Legend: 4.50-5.00 – Fully Demonstrated 3.50-4.49 – Significantly Demonstrated 2.50-3.49 – Sometimes Demonstrated 1.50-2.49 – Minimally Demonstrated 1.00-1.49 – Not Demonstrated In general, the results show that elementary school principals in Candelaria play a key role in ensuring equitable and effective technology innovation within their schools. They guide teams in ensuring fair technology policies that support learning for everyone. This includes making sure all students have equal access to the right digital tools and resources. While a single, all-encompassing “equitable technology policy” document might not be explicitly named, DepEd's commitment to equity in technology use for education is evident through various programs, guidelines, and pronouncements. One of these policies that school heads follow and adhere is the DepEd Computerization Program (DCP) which is the most direct policy for equitable access. Its primary goal is to provide public schools with appropriate, quality, and equitable technologies. Another is the implementation of RA 11650 (Inclusive Education for Learners with Disabilities) which underscore the use of assistive technologies and accessible digital content. This ensures that technology serves as an enabler, not a barrier, for students with diverse learning needs. One more policy is the provision of the Professional Development Programs for Teachers that equip teachers with the necessary skills to integrate technology effectively into their teaching practices and train teachers to use technology to support learner-centered approaches, personalized learning, and 21st-century skills development. DepEd also provides schools with Learning Resources Management and Development System (LRMDS) is designed to be a repository of quality-assured digital learning resources. Principals are responsible for fostering a stimulating and current digital learning environment that offers a challenging, relevant, and engaging education for every student. Finally, they ensure there are enough resources and infrastructure to effectively support the use of technology for learning, even as needs evolve. According to Dogan (2017), innovation is a “strategic choice" that leads to organizational progress. Because the school administrator is the highest-ranking official in the school, they are responsible for establishing the vision and creating an environment in which each team member can freely express their creativity. If the manager does not own innovation, it cannot occur in the school. Above all, the principal's inventive approach persuades people that they can accomplish things they previously thought were impossible. The most important issue in managing modern schools in an innovation environment is transforming the traditional school into a novel educational institution through the implementation of development techniques. The administrator's knowledge, capability, and abilities are solely responsible for the school's performance. In public schools in development, innovation processes are managed. Several potential advances in school management have been documented. For example, administrators can adopt "process innovation" (new service delivery), "organizational innovation" (new organizational approach), and "incremental innovation" (gradual modifications to existing structure) in schools (Akpan, 2016). Table 4 Level of School Heads’ Digital Leadership in Terms of Digital Communication Skills The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2292 Statements Mean SD Verbal Interpretation The school head… 1. communicates clearly and concisely through digital channels. 4.30 .799 Significantly Demonstrated 2. utilizes digital tools to enhance communication and collaboration within the school community. 4.34 .735 Significantly Demonstrated 3. regularly sends out digital newsletters, advisories, memos and updates to keep the community informed. 4.39 .827 Significantly Demonstrated 4. actively listens to feedback concerns expressed through digital platforms. 4.32 .805 Significantly Demonstrated 5. promotes digital citizenship and responsible online behavior. 4.24 .825 Significantly Demonstrated OVERALL 4.32 .713 Significantly Demonstrated Legend: 4.50-5.00 – Fully Demonstrated 3.50-4.49 – Significantly Demonstrated 2.50-3.49 – Sometimes Demonstrated 1.50-2.49 – Minimally Demonstrated 1.00-1.49 – Not Demonstrated Table 4 above presents the findings on how well school heads demonstrate Digital Communication Skills as leaders. This indicates that school heads consistently demonstrate strong digital communication skills in their leadership, as evidenced by a total mean score of 4.32, which is interpreted as "Significantly Demonstrated". This indicates that school heads demonstrate digital leadership through their strong digital communication skills. They effectively communicate clearly and concisely using various digital channels. They also leverage digital tools to improve communication and collaboration throughout the school. School heads consistently send out digital newsletters, advisories, memos, and updates to keep everyone informed, and they actively listen to feedback and concerns shared on digital platforms. Moreover, they promote digital citizenship and responsible online behavior within the school community. Most of the school heads lead the creation and enforcement of comprehensive policies for internet and digital devices within their school. These policies clearly outline what is and isn't allowed, addressing issues like online safety, cyber bullying, netiquette and copyright and plagiarism. As such, school heads also advocate for and oversee the integration of digital citizenship education across various subjects and grade levels. They ensure that students are taught how to critically evaluate online information, identify fake news, understand bias, and verify sources. By taking a comprehensive and proactive approach that integrates policy, curriculum, professional development, and community engagement, school heads effectively promote digital citizenship and responsible online behavior, preparing students to be safe, ethical, and empowered participants in the digital world. The school heads regularly send out digital newsletters, advisories, memos, and updates to keep the community informed, as it was described as “Significantly Demonstrated” because it received the highest mean of 4.39. Meanwhile, the indicator that tells school heads to promote digital citizenship and responsible online behavior received the lowest mean of 4.24. Yet, it also fell to the descriptive level of “Significantly Demonstrated.” Accordingly, digital communication entails the exchange of information between communication partners in a digital environment. Means of communication can be defined as the various technologies that facilitate people's ability to communicate. Given their interactions with public stakeholders such as parents, legislators, and the community, principals must have a personal interest in technology as a communication tool. Principals play a crucial role in shaping the school's vision for how technology is utilized in teaching and learning, given their position of authority and community involvement. According to Afzaal (2017), school principals must possess basic computer skills to perform administrative and managerial tasks at their schools. Principals must maintain continuous communication with teachers, students, parents, Boards of Management (BoMs), the Ministry of Education (MoE), the Teachers Service Commission (TSC), school vendors, and other key stakeholders to manage and lead their schools effectively. Ghavifekr, Afshari, Siraj, and Seger (2016) found that using email to notify instructors of meetings, deliver memos, and distribute critical internal and national policy documents had various advantages. On the other hand, due to the rapid changes in technology, school leaders must develop their digital literacy skills and implement innovative applications to ensure the safe and appropriate use of technology (Ribble & Miller, 2013). If school leaders recognize and are aware of the importance of digital citizenship and responsible online behavior, they can craft school policies regarding the proper and responsible use of digital media. Through this, students, under the guidance of their teachers, may be less affected by the harmful effects of technology addiction in the 21st century. For this reason, it is understood that educational leaders should provide digital leadership to students, enabling them to develop their digital citizenship skills within educational environments. Table 5 Summary Table of the Level of School Heads’ Digital Leadership The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2293 Statements Mean SD Verbal Interpretation 1. Visionary Leadership 4.21 .738 High 2. Technological Competence 4.17 .751 High 3. Innovation Management 4.21 .788 High 4. Digital Communication Skills 4.32 .713 High OVERALL 4.23 .709 High Legend: 4.50-5.00 – Very High 3.50-4.49 – High 2.50-3.49 – Moderately High/Low 1.50-2.49 – Low 1.00-1.49 – Very Low The summary table above presents the results of the 32 school heads' digital leadership expertise and their level of performance in using technology for school management. In Candelaria East and West Districts, school heads are demonstrating strong digital leadership, consistently practicing all four key competencies identified. Their overall average score of 4.23, interpreted as "High," indicates regular and observable digital leadership practices. Specifically, Digital Communication Skills stood out with the highest average score of 4.32, also interpreted as "High." While Technological Competence had the lowest average among the four at 4.17, it too was interpreted as "High." These are encouraging results, showing that school heads are performing well as technology leaders. However, there's still an opportunity for them to further enhance their digital leadership skills and reach a "Very High" level of competence. As stated by Meng et al. (2023), digital leadership in education is a multidimensional skill with important implications for the modern educational landscape. It reflects a leadership style that focuses on achieving digital transformation within educational organizations, thereby influencing the future of learning and administration. According to research, educational institution heads and leaders should demonstrate how to use technology to inspire subordinates to adopt it in their daily administrative and professional obligations (Hamzah et al., 2021). A technology or digital leader must understand how to utilize technology to enhance teaching, develop techniques to help teachers integrate technology into their instruction, and establish a technology team and support structure to encourage an organization's adoption of new technology consistently. A school principal's significant responsibilities include developing and implementing innovative technology techniques, assisting teachers in recognizing and understanding the value of integrating technology into teaching and instruction, and utilizing technology to enhance curriculum and instruction effectiveness. A school principal must also use leadership skills to encourage teachers and non-teaching staff to pursue training to improve their information technology skills, develop skills in using technology in administration and teaching, create a communal and supportive school environment, and improve school administration, teaching, and student learning and performance. PART II. SCHOOL HEAD'S READINESS FOR EDUCATION 4.0. Table 6 Level of School Heads’ Adoption of Emerging Technologies (e.g., AI, VR, AR) Statements Mean SD Verbal Interpretation The school head… 1. explores and experiments with new educational technologies (e.g., AI tools, VR/AR, data analytics platforms). 3.45 .846 Sometimes Demonstrated 2. uses Management Information System (MIS) or various data systems to gather, organize, and store data for reporting purposes. 4.09 .900 Significantly Demonstrated 3. utilizes AI-powered tools (e.g., note-taking apps, scheduling tools) to enhance personal productivity and efficiency. 4.04 .903 Significantly Demonstrated 4. utilizes emerging communication tools (e.g., video conferencing, instant messaging, project management software) for personal and professional tasks. 4.67 .909 Fully Demonstrated 5. seeks out and engages in professional development related to emerging technologies in education (e.g., webinars, online courses, conferences). 4.33 .808 Significantly Demonstrated OVERALL 4.12 .788 Significantly Demonstrated Legend: 4.50-5.00 – Fully Demonstrated 3.50-4.49 – Significantly Demonstrated 2.50-3.49 – Sometimes Demonstrated 1.50-2.49 – Minimally Demonstrated 1.00-1.49 – Not Demonstrated Table 6 presents a summary of ratings for the extent to which school heads are ready to adopt emerging technologies (e.g., AI, VR, AR). Data show that the readiness of elementary school principals in Candelaria, Quezon, regarding the acceptance of emerging technologies, has been described as “Significantly Demonstrated” due to its accrued average mean rating of 4.12. Survey results reveal a significant willingness and readiness among school leaders in most indicators. The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2294 The highest indicator suggests that school heads often or frequently utilize emerging communication tools, such as video conferencing, instant messaging, and project management software, for both personal and professional tasks. This interpretation was categorized as “Fully Demonstrated” due to a mean score of 4.67. In a related study, Bond et al. (2018) discovered that ICT skills are becoming increasingly important in the workplace, making digitalization in higher education (HE) a vital issue. Kimena's (2022) study also revealed a link between social media and school leadership, with WhatsApp being the most widely used medium, followed by Facebook, Zoom, Google Meet, and Google Classrooms. These findings supported the use and influence of digital media technologies in school leadership. On the other hand, the statement that says school heads explore and experiment with new educational technologies, such as AI tools, VR/AR, and data analytics platforms, was recorded as “Sometimes Demonstrated.” It got the lowest mean of 3.45. According to Ugur & Koc (2019), while principals may be willing to implement technology, they require more customized professional development to facilitate effective implementation. It also states that administrative training courses do not teach school principals or central office administrators how to use technology effectively. The result is similar with the study of Apsorn et al. (2019) in Thailand, the majority of educational technology difficulties are attributed to administrators' reluctance to utilize information technology. Administrators are still unprepared to master new technologies, and they do not see the importance of innovation and information technology. Administrators often lack the expertise, experience, and aptitude required to build innovative media and information technologies, as well as other aspects of teaching and learning that utilize media. Furthermore, the majority of school administrators continue to lack ICT leadership abilities, posing a substantial challenge to educational administration and management at both the school and national levels. Although there are still areas of unreadiness, this result still proves that the school leaders in Candelaria significantly demonstrate readiness in using different emerging technologies. They utilize a Management Information System (MIS) or other data systems to collect, organize, and store data for reporting. The school leaders also utilize AI-powered tools, such as note-taking apps and scheduling tools, to enhance personal work efficiency and productivity. They seek out and participate in growth opportunities related to emerging technologies in education through webinars, online courses, and conferences. In today's educational landscape, schools worldwide are transitioning to hybrid learning environments. This transition, triggered by the pandemic, has underlined the critical importance of digital technology tools in supporting the educational system, as well as the necessity for innovative school leadership in the post-pandemic period. School principals now have access to a wealth of data and computing capacity that was previously unavailable due to the greater integration of technology into teaching, learning, and educator-student interactions (Sorensen, 2019). Consequently, the integration of digital technological tools is a defining feature of the current and future learning and leadership landscape. In the post-pandemic era, high school administrators must stay current on digital innovations as the world adjusts. According to Okunlola et al. (2024), the pandemic has created new responsibilities for digital leaders, and the post-pandemic period will impose even more digital tasks and obligations on school leaders. Digital leaders must stay current with the evolving tools of the digital revolution to promote growth and development in the educational environment. The advent of digital technology has led to an unprecedented number of digital tools available to school leaders for use in their various responsibilities. School administrators may be embracing it because social media provides a wealth of free resources. Table 7 Level of School Heads’ Curriculum Innovation Statements Mean SD Verbal Interpretation The school head… 1. utilizes online platforms (e.g., Google Docs, shared drives) for collaborative curriculum development among teachers. 4.29 .832 Significantly Demonstrated 2. implements personalized learning platforms that utilize technology to adapt instruction to individual student needs and learning styles. 4.18 .856 Significantly Demonstrated 3. encourages and supports the use of innovative teaching practices that effectively integrate technology (e.g., blended learning, flipped classrooms, gamification). 4.26 .808 Significantly Demonstrated 4. evaluates emerging technologies with potential for curriculum innovation (e.g., AIpowered learning tools, VR/AR). 4.09 .841 Significantly Demonstrated 5. stays informed about the latest trends and innovations in educational technology. 4.22 .835 Significantly Demonstrated OVERALL 4.21 .773 Significantly Demonstrated Legend: 4.50-5.00 – Fully Demonstrated 3.50-4.49 – Significantly Demonstrated 2.50-3.49 – Sometimes Demonstrated 1.50-2.49 – Minimally Demonstrated 1.00-1.49 – Not Demonstrated The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2301 The emphasis on "sharing their expertise" is equally significant. It means that schools recognize and value the knowledge and skills individual teachers gain through their exploration. Basitere and Ndeto-Ivala (2017) showed that the use of technology can facilitate deep and meaningful collaborative learning. The result was a subtle contribution to exceptional performance and technological excellence. Furthermore, Hero's (2019) research found that teachers demonstrate expertise in incorporating technology into their classroom instruction, viewing it as a pedagogical innovation within the education paradigm. Meanwhile, the statement that says the schools utilize experienced and knowledgeable facilitators, such as technology specialists or other expert educators, has the lowest mean score of 4.04. Yet, I still fall under the descriptive rating “Often Observed”. We can conclude that, while schools recognize the value of expert guidance in professional development (PD) and provide it regularly, there may be a gap in the consistent and pervasive availability of highly specialized support across all digital learning initiatives. It suggests an opportunity to enhance the depth and reach of expert-led professional development to realize digital transformation goals fully. Table 14 Level of Schools’ Student Engagement with Digital Learning Statements Mean SD Verbal Interpretation It can be observed that… 1. students show active participation to online discussions, forums, or collaborative projects. 3.98 .933 Often Observed 2. students consistently use digital resources like e-books, videos, and simulations. 3.79 1.027 Often Observed 3. students apply digital tools to solve complex problems and critical thinking exercises. 3.38 1.055 Sometimes Observed 4. students utilize digital tools for creative projects like digital art, music production, or video editing. 3.61 1.013 Often Observed 5. students skillfully use devices like computers, tablets, and smartphones in learning. 3.69 .903 Often Observed OVERALL 3.69 .894 Often Observed Legend: 4.50-5.00 – Always Observed 3.50-4.49 – Often Observed 2.50-3.49 – Sometimes Observed 1.50-2.49 – Rarely Observed 1.00-1.49 – Never Observed Presented in Table 14 is the result of the perceived level of schools' Student Engagement with Digital Learning as part of Digital Transformation. As shown in the table, it is evident that students demonstrate active participation, attention, curiosity, interest, and motivation when interacting with educational content and activities through digital tools and platforms, which is often observed, as it has accumulated a total mean of 3.69. Based on the overall results, schools in Candelaria, Quezon, are largely successful in engaging students actively and making them interested in digital learning, representing a significant step in their digital transformation journey. However, addressing resource limitations, particularly device availability and the diversity of tools, could potentially elevate this engagement to an even higher, more consistent level. The indicator that shows students actively participating in online discussions, forums, or collaborative projects. Students who show active participation in online discussions, forums, or collaborative projects received the highest mean of 3.98, with a verbal interpretation of “Often Observed.” It proves that the schools are successfully leveraging digital tools to foster interactive, social, and higher-order learning experiences among their students. This demonstrates a significant step towards the collaborative learning goals of Education 4.0 and Digital Transformation. According to Hofer et al. (2021), the incorporation of technology in educational institutions has the potential to create more engaging learning experiences. Increased student involvement with learning materials is particularly encouraging, as it promotes a positive connection between students and their learning materials.On the other hand, the statement that tells students to apply digital tools to solve complex problems and engage in critical thinking exercises was perceived as “Sometimes Observed” and received the lowest average mean score of 3.38. It indicates that while students are engaging with digital tools and participating in online activities, they are less frequently using these tools for more advanced cognitive tasks, such as complex problem-solving and critical thinking. This suggests that the current integration of digital tools might lean more towards facilitating communication, accessing information, or completing basic tasks, rather than consistently pushing students to use technology as a medium for analysis, evaluation, synthesis, and creative problem-solving. The data clearly indicates that digital tools are integrated into the learning environment. Students are using them, but often for activities like information access, communication, basic task completion, and content consumption. While these are valuable uses of technology, they don't consistently push students to the cognitive levels of analysis, evaluation, synthesis, and creative problem-solving. Digital tools, in these instances, might be serving as convenient replacements for traditional methods rather than powerful accelerators for deeper learning. The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2302 Table 15 Summary Table of the Level of Schools’ Digital Transformation Statements Mean SD Verbal Interpretation 1. Integration of Digital Tools in Teaching 4.11 .746 High 2. Digital Infrastructure Development 3.77 .919 High 3. Teacher Training and Professional Development 4.19 .706 High 4. Student Engagement with Digital Learning 3.69 .894 High OVERALL 3.94 .746 High Legend: 4.50-5.00 – Very High 3.50-4.49 – High 2.50-3.49 – Moderately High/Low 1.50-2.49 – Low 1.00-1.49 – Very Low Table 15 displays the summary of schools’ level towards Digital Transformation, which got a descriptive value of “High” and accumulated a weighted mean of 3.94. It shows that schools in the Candelaria East and West Districts are already adapting to these new demands in all four facets of digital transformation. They are not only informed but also taking practical actions to prepare the schools for the new era. It indicates that the schools are making clear, consistent, and substantial progress in their digital transformation efforts. It's not just a superficial change but a noticeable shift in how technology is integrated into various aspects of schooling. As mentioned by Ilomaki and Lakkala (2018), in the face of these quick and ongoing changes, educational systems are pushed to innovate and adapt their teaching-learning environments to the changing needs of their student populations. As a result, modern technologies will become a fundamental component of students' learning, not just to improve their academic performance, but also to equip them with the skills necessary to function successfully in a digital society (Limna et al., 2022). Teacher Training and professional development were often observed in schools, receiving the highest overall mean score of 4.19. This indicates that schools are performing exceptionally well in providing continuous learning opportunities for their teaching staff regarding digital tools and pedagogies. This is a crucial strength. It means that teachers are generally well-equipped, knowledgeable, and supported in understanding how to integrate technology into their teaching. The human capital aspect of digital transformation is strong. Meanwhile, Student Engagement with Digital Learning was also interpreted as “High,” although it had the lowest average of 3.69. This finding suggests that while student engagement is occurring, there may be more room for improvement in this area compared to others, or it may be a factor that is less consistently observed than other elements of schools’ digital transformation. It might be due to resource limitations, particularly the insufficient number of devices and the lack of diverse, advanced digital tools, which are likely preventing student engagement from reaching its full potential. To further elevate student engagement, these fundamental resource gaps must be addressed. In the Philippines, digitalization is gradually transforming the face of education. During the pandemic from 2020 to 2023, education at primary to tertiary levels employed a variety of teaching and learning methods that incorporated technology, ensuring the continuity of students' learning and employees' employment. The Learning Continuity Plan (LCP) was specifically introduced at the basic education level by the Department of Education (DepEd) in 2020. The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has additionally reinforced the intrinsic academic freedom of higher education institutions to implement the essential learning plan, thereby continuing education at the tertiary level (CHED, 2020). These projects have included e-learning, remote learning, and other alternative delivery techniques in education. Furthermore, the government is beginning to digitalize its educational processes with the establishment of several initiatives, including DepEd Commons, DepEd TV, DepEd Radio, DepEd Learning Management System, and DepEd Mobile App (Ponti, 2021; Hernando-Malipot, 2021). Such initiatives have helped to increase the use of digital platforms and other technologies in the classroom. Similarly, they have been essential in augmenting public schools' modular learning to improve student learning in several subject areas during the pandemic (Cho et al., 2021; Potane, 2022). Consequently, the country's education system is shifting toward the use of ICT through the Digital Rise Program, which provides online learning tools to classrooms, teachers, and students (Llego, 2020). Filipinos are among the world's most active users of the Internet and social media (Baclig, 2022), which is crucial for digital transformation in education. PART IV. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL HEADS AND TEACHERS The Table 16 summarizes the detailed ANOVA results for each key variable related to School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence, School Heads’ Readiness to Education 4.0, and School’s Digital Transformation. ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) tests whether there are statistically significant differences between groups for each variable. In this study, the researcher measured the differences in responses between school heads and teachers. The F-statistic measures how much group means differ relative to the variation within groups. A higher F means a stronger effect. The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2303 The p-value tells us whether these differences are statistically significant. A p-value less than 0.05 (*) is considered significant, and less than 0.01 (**) is highly significant. The strongest effects are seen in Digital Infrastructure Development (F = 21.918, p < 0.01), School’s Digital Transformation (F = 14.863, p < 0.01) Curriculum Innovation (F = 12.889, p < 0.01), and School Head’s Readiness for Education 4.0 (F = 12.11, p = 0.001). All variables tested show at least significant, and most highly significant, differences between groups. This means that schools differ meaningfully in these areas, and these differences are not due to random chance. In practical terms, these results indicate that schools with higher digital leadership competence and readiness have significantly better outcomes in digital transformation, infrastructure, curriculum innovation, and related areas. The consistently low p-values across all variables reinforce the strength of these findings. Even the lowest F-statistics, such as Innovation Management and Digital Communication Skills, are still statistically significant, showing that every aspect of digital leadership measured here plays a role in differentiating schools’ digital transformation success. Table 16 Difference on the Perceptions of School Heads and Teachers as to School Heads’ Digital Leadership, School Heads’ Readiness to Education 4.0, and Schools’ Digital Transformation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Visionary Leadership Between Groups 4.033 1 4.033 7.482 .006 Within Groups 344.456 639 .539 Total 348.489 640 Technological competence Between Groups 2.127 1 2.127 3.785 .052 Within Groups 359.058 639 .562 Total 361.185 640 Innovation management Between Groups 5.575 1 5.575 9.094 .003 Within Groups 391.755 639 .613 Total 397.330 640 Digital communication skills Between Groups .317 1 .317 .623 .430 Within Groups 325.214 639 .509 Total 325.531 640 Over-all School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence Between Groups 2.553 1 2.553 5.115 .024 Within Groups 318.915 639 .499 Total 321.468 640 Adoption of emerging technologies Between Groups 7.834 1 7.834 12.835 .000 Within Groups 390.024 639 .610 Total 397.858 640 Curriculum innovation Between Groups 7.569 1 7.569 12.889 .000 Within Groups 375.253 639 .587 Total 382.822 640 Personalized learning approaches Between Groups 5.931 1 5.931 10.267 .001 Within Groups 369.127 639 .578 Total 375.058 640 Collaboration and networking Between Groups 4.716 1 4.716 9.082 .003 Within Groups 331.846 639 .519 Total 336.562 640 Over-all School Head’s Readiness to Education 4.0 Between Groups 6.448 1 6.448 12.110 .001 Within Groups 340.256 639 .532 Total 346.705 640 Integration of digital tools in teaching. Between Groups 3.506 1 3.506 6.354 .012 Within Groups 352.598 639 .552 Total 356.104 640 Digital infrastructure development Between Groups 17.945 1 17.945 21.918 .000 Within Groups 523.162 639 .819 Total 541.107 640 Teacher training and professional development Between Groups 5.793 1 5.793 11.829 .001 Within Groups 312.900 639 .490 Total 318.692 640 Student engagement with digital learning Between Groups 8.184 1 8.184 10.387 .001 Within Groups 503.473 639 .788 Total 511.657 640 School’s Digital Between Groups 8.088 1 8.088 14.863 .000 The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2304 Transformation Within Groups 347.743 639 .544 Total 355.832 640 In summary, the ANOVA results provide strong evidence that digital leadership and readiness are critical drivers of digital transformation in schools. The table breaks down the variance in responses for each variable into "Between Groups" (differences between teachers and school heads) and "Within Groups" (variation within each group). This analysis reveals that, at least for certain aspects of digital leadership, teachers and school administrators do not share the same perspective. This is important for understanding where perceptions align and where they diverge, which can inform targeted interventions or professional development. The results indicate that Digital Infrastructure Development has the largest perception gap between teachers and school heads, as evidenced by the highest F-value (21.918) and a highly significant p-value. This suggests that school heads and teachers in Candelaria, Quezon, have notably different views on the adequacy and effectiveness of digital infrastructure in their schools. One likely reason is that school heads, who are responsible for overseeing and reporting on infrastructure projects, may have a more optimistic or strategic perspective, focusing on completed upgrades, procurement, or plans. They may be more aware of budgets, investments, and policy intentions, which can lead them to rate infrastructure development more favorably. In contrast, teachers interact daily with the actual technology and resources in classrooms. They are more likely to encounter practical issues such as unreliable internet, insufficient devices, or a lack of technical support, which can lead to lower ratings. This gap may also be widened if communication about infrastructure improvements is not transparent or if teachers feel their feedback on needs and challenges is not fully considered in decision-making. Ultimately, the significant difference highlights the importance of aligning leadership perspectives with on-the-ground realities to ensure that digital infrastructure investments truly meet the needs of both educators and students. The fact that Digital Communication Skills shows almost no significant difference between teachers and school heads (F = 0.623, p = 0.430) suggests that both groups have similar perceptions about communication competencies in the digital realm. This alignment likely occurs because digital communication skills are more observable and universally experienced by both groups in their daily interactions. Unlike infrastructure development or strategic visioning, which may be perceived differently based on role responsibilities, digital communication involves concrete, measurable behaviors that both teachers and school heads can assess similarly. Both groups regularly use email, messaging platforms, video conferencing, and other digital tools to communicate with colleagues, parents, and students, giving them comparable reference points for evaluation. Additionally, digital communication skills are often more standardized and less dependent on resource allocation or strategic planning - they rely more on individual competency and familiarity with common digital platforms rather than institutional support or infrastructure. The shared experience of adapting to digital communication tools, particularly accelerated by recent global events that necessitated remote learning and virtual meetings, has likely fostered a common understanding of what constitutes effective digital communication. Furthermore, communication skills are more immediately apparent in daily interactions, making it easier for both groups to accurately assess competency levels, whereas other areas, such as innovation management or infrastructure development, may be more abstract or removed from direct observation for one group or the other. School heads consistently rate themselves and their schools higher than teachers do across almost all dimensions. This comprehensive analysis reveals systematic differences in how teachers versus school heads perceive digital leadership effectiveness and transformation progress, with school heads generally having more optimistic assessments. School heads consistently rate digital leadership, readiness for Education 4.0, and digital transformation higher than teachers do, as shown by significant F-values and low p-values in most categories, such as Visionary Leadership, Innovation Management, and Digital Infrastructure Development. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between the responses of the school heads and teachers. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. The difference between the responses of school heads and teachers may be due to the differences in their roles and responsibilities. School heads are responsible for setting vision, policy, and reporting progress. They may have a more strategic, optimistic view of digital initiatives, focusing on plans and intentions. Meanwhile, teachers experience the day-to-day realities of implementation. They may encounter more obstacles, such as a lack of resources, training, or support, that school heads are less aware of. It may be due to access to information. School heads often have access to more comprehensive information about school-wide initiatives, funding, and plans, which can make them more optimistic about progress. Teachers, on the other hand, may only see what directly affects their classrooms, leading to a more critical or realistic assessment of the situation. Another possible reason is the resource allocation. School heads may believe that resources such as technology, infrastructure, and training are adequate because they oversee budgets and procurement. Teachers may feel resources are unevenly distributed or not reaching the classroom level, especially in large or underfunded schools. In conclusion, perception gaps are caused by disparities in roles, access to information, training, resource allocation, communication, and evaluation standards. Addressing these gaps demands more collaborative planning, open communication, and The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2305 targeted teacher assistance to ensure that digital transformation is both visionary and practical at all levels of the school. PART V. PREDICTORS OF SCHOOL HEADS’ DIGITAL LEADERSHIP COMPETENCE AND READINESS FOR EDUCATION 4.0 ON SCHOOLS’ DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION Table 17 Tests of the Relationship between School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Schools’ Digital Transformation School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IDTT DID TTPDev SEDL Overall Digital Transformation Visionary Leadership .702** .552** .708** .495** .662** Technological Competence .754** .581** .677** .497** .677** Innovation Management .736** .558** .692** .414** .644** Digital Communication Skills .744** .585** .733** .519** .696** Overall, School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence .774** .601** .741** .509** .707** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Legend: IDTT -Integration of digital tools in teaching. DIDDigital infrastructure development. TTPD - Teacher training and professional development. SEDL-Student engagement with digital learning. DT – Digital Transformation Table 17 presents detailed statistical data on the correlation between various aspects of school heads’ digital leadership and the degree of digital transformation in their schools. This table presents the results of Pearson correlation analyses between different dimensions of digital leadership competence and the overall digital transformation observed in elementary schools. The table is structured as a correlation matrix, where each row represents a specific dimension of digital leadership competence— such as visionary leadership, innovation management, technological competence, and digital communication skills—and each column shows the corresponding Pearson correlation coefficient (r), the significance level (p-value), and the sample size (N) for the relationship with digital transformation. The results reveal that all dimensions of digital leadership competence are highly, positively and significantly correlated with digital transformation. For example, the correlation between visionary leadership and digital transformation is particularly strong, with a Pearson r value of 0.774 and a significance level of p<.001, indicating a very strong association. Similarly, innovation management exhibits a high correlation (r = 0.741, p < .001), as does technological competence (r = 0.601, p < .001). These findings suggest that as school heads demonstrate higher levels of competence in these areas, their schools are more likely to achieve greater progress in digital transformation initiatives. The table also includes the sample size for each correlation, which is consistent across all dimensions, ensuring the reliability of the results. The consistently low p-values (all less than 0.01) across the board indicate that these relationships are statistically significant and unlikely to be due to chance. In summary, the table provides compelling evidence that school heads’ digital leadership in Candelaria East and West Districts, across multiple competencies, is a critical driver of digital transformation in elementary schools. The strong and significant correlations underscore the importance of investing in leadership development as a strategy for advancing digital initiatives in education. This analysis highlights the interconnectedness of leadership skills and successful digital change in schools. With the country's efforts to digitalize schools, school leaders must lead the way in developing a digital culture in schools, so that students can fully benefit from their digital opportunities. To successfully integrate a digital culture in schools, digital resources are necessary, including leaders with established digital leadership abilities (Pendry & Salvatore, 2015). As a result, the principal's leadership is crucial in recognizing that schools are increasingly adopting cutting-edge technology in their teaching and learning processes. To attain educational goals, principals must be able to maximize the utilization of all available resources (Agustina et al., 2020). They integrate digital tools into all aspects of school management, resulting in a 360-degree transformation in the education industry. The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2306 Table 18 Tests of the Relationship between School Heads' Readiness and Schools’ Digital Transformation School Head’s Readiness Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IDTT DID TTPDev SEDL Overall Digital Transformation Adoption of Emerging Technologies .740** .580** .685** .432** .655** Curriculum Innovation .737** .597** .748** .489** .692** Personalized Learning Approaches .739** .595** .745** .518** .700** Collaboration and Networking .732** .576** .731** .495** .682** Overall, School Head’s Readiness .764** .609** .753** .501** .707** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Legend: IDTT -Integration of digital tools in teaching. DIDDigital infrastructure development. TTPD - Teacher training and professional development. SEDL-Student engagement with digital learning. DT – Digital Transformation Table 18 provides a comprehensive overview of the statistical relationships between various aspects of a school head’s readiness for Education 4.0 and the digital transformation occurring within elementary schools. This analysis directly addresses whether being more prepared in specific areas translates to more advanced digital transformation in schools. The table presents Pearson correlation coefficients (r) for five key dimensions of school head readiness: adoption of emerging technologies, curriculum innovation, personalized learning approaches, collaboration and networking, and an overall readiness composite score. Each of these readiness dimensions is correlated with several facets of digital transformation, including integration of digital tools in teaching (IDTT), digital infrastructure development (DID), teacher training and professional development (TTPDev), student engagement with digital learning (SEDL), and an overall digital transformation score. All coefficients marked with ** are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), meaning there is less than a 1% probability that these strong positive relationships are due to chance. The results show that all aspects of school head readiness are strongly and positively correlated with digital transformation outcomes. For instance, the overall readiness score has a high correlation with overall digital transformation (r=0.707, p<.01), and the readiness dimension most strongly associated with digital transformation is personalized learning approaches (r=0.700, p<.01). Even the lowest correlation, between adoption of emerging technologies and student engagement with digital learning (r=0.432, p<.01), is still considered a moderate positive relationship. This means that as school heads become more prepared—whether by adopting new technologies, innovating curricula, personalizing learning, or fostering collaboration—their schools are more likely to experience successful digital transformation. The consistently high and significant correlations across all dimensions suggest that readiness is a critical driver of digital progress in schools. In summary, the table provides strong evidence that the readiness of elementary school heads in Education 4.0 is closely linked to the success of digital transformation in elementary schools in Candelaria, Quezon. Investing in leadership development and readiness in these areas is likely to yield substantial benefits for schools aiming to advance their digital capabilities. Table 19. Regression of Elementary Schools' Digital Transformation on School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T Sig. B Std. Error Beta 6 (Constant) .884 .125 7.075 .000 School Heads Digital Leadership Innovation Management .306 .067 .324 4.571 .000 Technological Competence .197 .060 .198 3.271 .001 Digital Communication Skills -.144 .068 -.138 -2.134 .033 School Head’s Readiness Curriculum Innovation .380 .050 .394 7.611 .000 R=.737 R Squared= .543 Adjusted R Square=.541 SEE =.505 F(4,636) =189.236 p=.000 The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2307 Table 19 presents a comprehensive multiple regression analysis, identifying the specific factors that significantly influence elementary schools' digital transformation. This regression model examines the predictive power of various dimensions of school heads' digital leadership competence and readiness in explaining the variance in digital transformation outcomes. The regression analysis results indicate a strong and statistically significant relationship between schools' digital transformation and the digital leadership competence and readiness of school heads. This suggests that 54.1% of the variance in digital leadership competence and readiness is explained by digital transformation, indicating a moderately strong predictive power. This value represents the average distance of the observed values from the predicted values. A lower standard error suggests a more precise model. A very high F-value with a p-value of 0.000 indicates that the regression model is highly significant. There is an extremely low probability that these results occurred by chance. The regression analysis reveals that four key factors emerge as significant predictors of digital transformation in elementary schools. These are as follows: Innovation Management, a dimension of digital leadership competence, demonstrates the strongest positive effect, with an unstandardized coefficient of B = 0.306 (SE = 0.067) and a standardized coefficient of 0.324. This coefficient is highly significant (t=4.571, p<.001), indicating that for every 1-unit increase in innovation management competence, digital transformation increases by approximately 0.306 units, holding all other variables constant. The standardized coefficient suggests that innovation management has the second-largest relative impact among the predictors. Curriculum Innovation, representing school heads' readiness, emerges as the most influential predictor, with an unstandardized coefficient of B = 0.380 (SE = 0.050) and the highest standardized coefficient of 0.394. This relationship is highly significant (t = 7.611, p < .001), demonstrating that curriculum innovation readiness has the strongest relative impact on digital transformation. This finding suggests that school heads who are prepared to innovate curricula are most likely to lead successful digital transformation initiatives in their schools. Digital transformation in education isn't just about procuring devices or setting up WiFi. It's fundamentally about transforming the teaching and learning process itself. School heads who are ready to innovate curricula possess a forward-thinking mindset. They don't see technology as an add-on, but as a catalyst for fundamentally reimagining what students learn and how they learn it. They understand that digital tools enable new pedagogies and new learning outcomes. Instead of simply adopting digital tools, school heads with this readiness focus on their purposeful integration into the curriculum. Curriculum innovation readiness is inherently linked to pedagogical innovation. A school head prepared to innovate the curriculum will encourage teachers to explore new teaching methods that leverage digital tools, such as personalized learning paths, blended learning models, and data-driven instructions. Technological Competence, another dimension of digital leadership, shows a moderate positive effect, with a beta coefficient of 0.197 (standard error = 0.060) and a standardized coefficient of 0.198. This coefficient is statistically significant (t = 3.271, p = .001), indicating that technological skills contribute meaningfully to digital transformation, albeit to a lesser extent than innovation management and curriculum innovation. Interestingly, Digital Communication Skills presents a negative relationship with digital transformation (B = -0.144, SE = 0.068, β = -0.138), which is statistically significant (t = -2.134, p = .033). This unexpected finding suggests that a higher emphasis on digital communication skills may be associated with lower levels of digital transformation, possibly indicating that schools that focus heavily on communication technologies might be neglecting other aspects of comprehensive digital transformation. The overall model demonstrates strong explanatory power, with an R² of 0.543, meaning that these four predictors collectively explain approximately 54.3% of the variance in elementary schools' digital transformation. The adjusted R2=0.541 confirms that this explanatory power remains strong even after accounting for the number of predictors in the model. The model's overall significance is confirmed by the ANOVA results (F(4,636) =189.236, p<.001), indicating that the regression model as a whole is highly significant and that these predictors collectively have a meaningful relationship with digital transformation. According to Akpan (2016), the most important issue in managing modern schools in an innovation environment is transforming the traditional school into a novel educational institution through the implementation of development techniques. The school heads' knowledge, capability, and abilities are solely responsible for the school's performance. To support the results above, Çetin and Karsantık (2022) emphasize that school principals, as educational leaders, play a crucial role in driving institutional change and fostering innovation, drawing on leadership theories such as transformational and distributed leadership. As school leaders and in charge of local-level curriculum innovation, they oversee the design of Education 4.0-compatible learning environments, mobilize resources, and empower teachers to make changes. They highlight the importance of teachers' leadership in instructional design, curriculum creation, and technology integration to maximize the benefits of Education 4.0 in classrooms. Digitalization will continue to provide challenges to future leadership practices. To effectively manage their teams in the future, leaders must understand how to navigate the rising challenges presented by the digital age. They must be technologically competent. The most successful digital transition begins with a shift in leaders' attitudes, which they must anticipate (Kane, 2019). In conclusion, this regression analysis identifies innovation management competence and curriculum innovation readiness as the The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2308 most critical factors driving digital transformation in elementary schools. In contrast, technological competence provides additional, albeit more modest, contributions. The negative effects of digital communication skills warrant further investigation, but suggest that balanced leadership approaches, focusing on innovation and curriculum development rather than solely on communication technologies, are most effective for achieving comprehensive digital transformation in educational settings. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Since the findings proved that there is a significant relationship between the school heads’ digital leadership, school heads’ readiness for Education 4.0, and schools’ digital transformation, the following recommendations are hereby offered and suggested. The Department of Education may incorporate the concepts of digital citizenship into school management and leadership. For them to do this, the indicator should be included in the School Head’s Development Program as one of the foundational courses for leadership for the principal. Principals should be more aware of how they can improve their digital leadership by attending a series of training sessions and seminars focused on technology in management and leadership. They may prioritize professional development in digital leadership skills, particularly in areas such as visionary leadership, innovation management, and digital communication. Since there is strong evidence that elementary school heads’ digital leadership and readiness in Education 4.0 are closely linked to the success of digital transformation in schools, DepEd, through BHROD and NEAP may invest in leadership development and readiness of school heads to yield substantial benefits for schools aiming to advance their digital capabilities. Future researchers may undertake the same study to support or contradict the findings of this study and to provide additional insights into the influence of principals’ digital leadership and readiness for Education 4.0 in promoting schools’ digital transformation. They may be interested in the same parameter of the study or may undertake a similar study using other variables that are not included in the study. School systems and policymakers should support and resource leadership training that aligns with the demands of Education 4.0 to promote Digital Transformation in schools. REFERENCES 1) Agustina, R., Kamdi, W., Hadi, S., & Nurhadi, D. (2020). Influence of the principal’s digital leadership on the reflective practices of vocational teachers mediated by trust, self-efficacy, and work engagement. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(11), 24-40. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.11.2 2) Akpan, C. (2016). Innovative Practices in School Administration. International Journal of Educational Administration, Planning and Research, 45-53. 3) Aksal, F. A. (2015). Are headmasters digital leaders in school culture? Ted E˘gitim ve Bilim, 40(182), 77–86. 4) Apsorn, Amnat & Sisan, Boonchan & Tungkunanan, Pariyaporn. (2019). Information and Communication Technology Leadership of School Administrators in Thailand. International Journal of Instruction. 12. 639-650. 10.29333/iji.2019.12240a. 5) Baclig, C. E. (2022, April 29). Social media, internet craze keep PH on top 2 of world list. Inquirer.Net. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1589845/social-media-internetcraze-keep-ph-on-top-2-of-world-list 6) Basitere, Moses & Ndeto-Ivala, Eunice (2017). An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Use of Multimedia and Wiley Plus Web-Based Homework System in Enhancing Learning in the Chemical Engineering Extended Curriculum Program Physics Course. Electronic Journal of e-Learning. Volume 15, No. 2, pp. 156-173 7) Bond, M., Marín, V. I., Dolch, C., Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Digital transformation in German higher education: student and teacher perceptions and usage of digital media. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0130-1 8) Cantos, A.S. & Callo, E.C. (2022). The Impact of School Heads’ Technology Leadership on Teachers’ Technological Proficiency and Academic Optimism. International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, Volume 3 Issue 3, pp. 106 - 127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53378/352914 9) Cetin, M. & Karsantık, I. (2022). Current Trends in School Management: School Leadership in Education 4.0. Educational Theory in the 21st Century, Maarif Global Education Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9640-4_9 10) Cho, Y., Avalos, J., Kawasoe, Y., Johnson, D., & Rodriguez, R. (2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lowincome households in the Philippines. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35260Dogan, E. (2017). A Strategic Approach to Innovation. Pressacademia, 290-300. 11) Ghouri, A. M. (2020, November 8). Leading Sustainable Schools in the Era of Education 4.0: Identifying school leadership competencies in Malaysian secondary schools. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3726924 12) Hamzah, H.N., Nasir, M.K. and Wahab, J.A. (2021), “The effects of principals’ digital leadership on teachers’ digital teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic in Malaysia”, Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 216-221, doi: 10.20448/journal.509.2021.82.216.221. The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2309 13) Hero, J.L. (2019). The impact of technology integration in teaching performance. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR). 48(1), 101-114. 14) Hofer, S. I., Nistor, N., & Scheibenzuber, C. (2021). Online teaching and learning in higher education: Lessons learned in crisis situations. Computers in Human Behavior, 121, 106789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106789 15) Huma, et al (2023). Relationship between Visionary Leadership and implementation of Change Management strategies in Private Secondary Schools in Nairobi County. Stratford Peer Reviewed Journals and Book Publishing Journal of Education. Vol. 6 No. 3, 2023, page 21-38 16) Ilomaki, L., & Lakkala, M. (2018). Digital technology and practices for school improvement: Innovative digital school model. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Leaming, 13, 1-32. 17) Jannah, M., et al., (2020). Elementary school teachers’ perceptions of digital technology-based learning in the 21st Century: Promoting digital technology as the proponent learning tools. Al Ibtida: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru MI, 7(1), 118. Available at: https://doi.org/10.24235/al.ibtida.snj.v7i1.6088. 18) Kadir, et al. (2020). Visionary Leadership and Staff Innovative Behavior in Public Colleges of Education in Kwara State. International Journal of Education Vol. 12, No. 2, 2020, page. 63-76 19) Kane, G. (2019). The technology fallacy: People are the real key to digital transformation. Research-Technology Management, 62(6), 44-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2019.1661079 20) Kassim, U.K., & Teng, P.K. (2018). Conceptual study on enhancement of education 4.0 from management perspective. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on language, education, and innovation. https://icsai.org/procarch/10iclei/10iclei-019.pdf 21) Karahan, E., et al., (2015). Integration of media design processes in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 15(60), 221-240. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.60.15. 22) Kimena, J. (2022). The Impact of Social Media on School Leadership in Selected Secondary Schools of Lusaka Urban [Doctoraldissertation, University of Zambia]. 23) Kin, T. M., & Kareem, O. A. (2019). School leaders’ competencies that make a difference in the era of education 4.0: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(5), 214–225. 24) Kunjiapu, Shamuni & Sinnappan, Punitha & Anor Salim, Farah Akmar & Kunasegaran, Mageswari. (2025). Challenges and Dilemmas of Digitalization in Philippine Education: A Grassroots Perspective. Journal of Public Administration and Governance. 14. 232. 10.5296/jpag.v14i2.22325. 25) Leong, et al., (2016). Relationship between principal technology leadership practices and teacher ICT competency. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, 4(3), 13-36. Available at: https://doi.org/10.22452/mojem.vol4no3.2. 26) Limna, P., Jakwatanatham, S., Siripipattanakul, S., Kaewpuang, P & Sriboonruang, P. (2022). A review of artificial intelligence (AI) ir education during the digital era. Advance Knowledge for Executives, 1(1), 1-9. Retrieved March 14, 2023, from https://ssm.com/abstract=4160798 27) Liu, et al. (2022). How and When Does Visionary Leadership Promote Followers’ Taking Charge? The Roles of Inclusion of Leader in Self and Future Orientation. Journal Dovepress: Psychology Research and Behavior Management. 2022:15-page 1917–1929 28) Llego, M. A. (2020). Accelerating the DepEd Computerization Program in the light of COVID-19 pandemic, TEACHERPH. https://www.teacherph.com/depedcomputerization-program-covid-19-pandemic/ 29) Meng, G.K., Mansor, M., & Syariff M. Fuad., D.R. (2023). Bibliometric analysis on the digital leadership in the Scopus database using Rstudio bibliometrix. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development (IJARPED), 12(4), 1219-1234. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v12-i4/19175 30) Mendoza, J., & HIFE, L. (2020, December). EDUCATIONAL LEADERS PRACTICES AND SCHOOL CULTURE IN CALABARZON STATE UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 11(12), 603–617. https://www.ijser.org/researchpaper/EDUCATIONAL-LEADERS-PRACTICESANDSCHOOL-CULTURE-IN-CALABARZON-STATE-UNIVERSITIES-AND-COLLEGES.pdf 31) Norakmar, M., et al., (2020). The technology leadership character of principals in ict integration in secondary schools. Journal of Educational Leadership, 7(1), 28–46. 32) Okeke, V. I., (2019). "Leadership Style and SMEs Sustainability in Nigeria: A Multiple Case Study" . Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. 6465. 33) https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/6465 34) Okunlola, J. O., Naicker, S. R., & Uleanya, C. (2024). Digital leadership in the fourth industrial revolution enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Cogent Education, 11(1), 1-12. The Impact of School Heads’ Digital Leadership Competence and Readiness to Education 4.0 in Promoting Elementary Schools’ Digital Transformation IJSSHMR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2025 www.ijsshmr.com Page 2310 https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2317258 35) Patiño, A., Ramí-rez-Montoya, M. S., & Fernández, M. B. (2023). Active learning and education 4.0 for complex thinking training: analysis of two case studies in open education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561023-00229-x 36) Pendry, F.L., & Salvatore, J., (2015). Individual and social benefits of online discussion forums. Computers in Human Behavior. 37) Ponti, J. (2021, May 26). The Philippines’ DepEd reveals tech-based plans. OpenGov. https://opengovasia.com/thephilippines-deped-reveals-tech-based-plans/ 38) Potane, J. D. (2022). Desıgn and utılızatıon of televısıon and radıo lessons amıd COVID19: Opportunıtıes, challenges and inıtıatıves. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention, 9(03), 6862–6873. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsshi/v9i03.03 39) Ribble, M., & Miller, T. N. (2011), Educational leadership in an online world: Connecting students to technology responsibility, safety, and ethics. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 137-145. 40) Sheninger, E. (2014). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times. Paper presented at the INTED2019 Proceedings. 41) Sorensen, L. C. (2019). “Big data” in educational administration: An application for predicting school dropout risk. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(3), 404–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18799439Suphakicco, P. S. (2022). The trends of education after the COVID-19 situation in Thailand. EducationQuarterlyReviews, 5(2), 388-396. 42) Tai, M. K., Omar, A. K., Musa, K., & Ghouri, A. M. (2022). Leading teaching and learning in the era of education 4.0: The relationship between perceived teacher competencies and teacher attitudes toward change. Asian Journal of University Education (AJUE), 18(1), 66–80. 43) Temelkova, M. (2018). Skills for digital leadership-prerequisite for developing high-tech economy. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 7(12), 50-74. 44) Tupas, F. P., & Noderama, R. P. (2020). Looking into in-service training for teachers in the philippines: are they gearing towards education 4.0. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4651–4660. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081034 45) Ugur, N. G., & Tugba, K. (2019). Leading and teaching with technology: school principals’ perspective. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 7(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.17583/ijelm.2019.3758 46) Van Niekerk, E. J., & Van Wyk, M. M. (2014). Staff’s perceptions of vision and long-term principal leadership in South African schools: An exploratory study. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4), 406–414. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n4p406. 47) Woods, P., & Roberts, A. (2019). Collaborative School Leadership in a Global Society: A critical perspective’. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(5), 663-677. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218759088