Next Article in Journal
How Classroom Curiosity Affects College Students’ Creativity?
Previous Article in Journal
The Use of Different Strategies and Their Impact on Success in Mental Calculation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bridging Theory and Practice with Immersive Virtual Reality: A Study on Transfer Facilitation in VET
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/educsci15091099
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Digital Transformation of Vocational Schools in Switzerland: The Importance of Innovative School Management Behavior

by
Andreas Harder
1,* and
Stephan Schumann
2
1
Department of Empirical Educational Research, Institute for Educational Analyses Baden-Wuerttemberg (IBBW), 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
2
Department of Business Administration and Economics, University of Konstanz, 78464 Konstanz, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(9), 1099; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091099
Submission received: 30 June 2025 / Revised: 16 August 2025 / Accepted: 19 August 2025 / Published: 25 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dynamic Change: Shaping the Schools of Tomorrow in the Digital Age)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Due to their close connection to the working world, digital transformation is particularly important for vocational schools. To ensure the sustainable integration of digital media into everyday school life, a holistic school improvement approach is necessary. In this context, school leadership plays a key role as the initiator and driver of relevant development processes. This study first examines the current development state of the digital transformation in vocational schools in Switzerland. Building on this, it investigates whether there are relations between the digital status quo and innovative school leadership practices. The data were collected in spring 2023 and the sample consists of 320 school management members from 135 vocational schools. The findings indicate that the digital development status of vocational schools in Switzerland is generally assessed positively. Based on the assessments of their schools’ digital development status, three distinct profiles of school management members emerge: those perceiving their schools as digitally advanced, digitally average, or having digital development potential. Innovative leadership practices are more common among school management members who perceive their schools as more digitally advanced. The study also reveals differences between language regions and financial resources depending on the stage of digitalization-related development. The results highlight the crucial role of school leadership in promoting digital transformation. Finally, education policy measures—such as language-region-specific support programs—are discussed.

1. Introduction

Vocational education holds a particularly high status in Switzerland. Many young people choose this pathway in order to acquire appropriate qualifications for the labor market (Kriesi et al., 2022). The Swiss vocational education system—comparable to those in Germany and Austria—exhibits certain unique features relative to other countries. The most prominent characteristic of vocational education in German-speaking countries is the so-called dual system (Ebner & Nikolai, 2010; Trampusch, 2010), which also represents the most widespread form of vocational training in Switzerland (Kriesi et al., 2022). The fundamental idea behind this model is that training takes place in two learning environments: the workplace and the vocational school (Negrini, 2015).
Due to their close connection to the labor market and their cooperation with training companies, vocational schools must be able to respond quickly to social and economic trends—including digital transformation. Unlike general education schools, they are directly shaped by labor market dynamics and must continuously adapt to changing demands. For many young people, vocational schools therefore represent the last opportunity to acquire the digital skills necessary to manage an increasingly digital working world. This need is also supported by the strategic framework “Vocational Education and Training 2030,” which has been in implementation since 2018 and highlights the importance of digital transformation for successful vocational education (Bosshard, 2018; Ecoplan AG, 2017).
However, it is insufficient to reduce digital transformation in the school context solely to the integration of digital media into teaching and learning arrangements. Rather, a school improvement approach is required—one that considers the necessary structural and organizational conditions in order to conceptualize digital transformation holistically. The literature already offers several models that emphasize this holistic perspective (e.g., Eickelmann & Gerick, 2017; Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2018).
Based on this premise, school management plays a particularly crucial role as a central actor within the school system. It is key to initiating and implementing innovations and change processes (Bonsen, 2003; Gräsel et al., 2020). This applies both to general school improvement processes (Bonsen, 2016; Cramer et al., 2021; Pietsch & Tulowitzki, 2017; Tulowitzki et al., 2019) and to developments related to digital transformation (Breiter, 2019; Dexter, 2018; Gerick & Eickelmann, 2019; Krein, 2023; Tulowitzki et al., 2021). It is the responsibility of school management to foster an innovation-friendly working climate and a culture of collaboration in order to successfully manage (digitally related) development processes (Brauckmann et al., 2019).
Previous research shows that the state of digital transformation in Swiss schools is generally rated positively. Moreover, the report “Digitalization in Education” indicates that there are regional differences within Switzerland: schools in the German-speaking part are better digitally equipped than those in the Latin-speaking regions (Educa, 2021). However, these studies primarily focus on general education schools. Despite the recognized importance of digital transformation for vocational schools, they have rarely been the focus of research so far. Overall, there is a lack of representative studies on the digital development of upper-secondary schools in Switzerland (Petko et al., 2022).
This article seeks to address this gap by investigating the current state of digital transformation in Swiss vocational schools and analyzing whether it is related with innovative school leadership practices as well as other individual school characteristics.

2. Theoretical Framework and State of Research

2.1. Dimensions of Digital Transformation from a School Improvement Perspective

As outlined in the introduction, the digital transformation of schools extends beyond the classroom level and affects multiple areas within the educational environment. For schools to operate sustainably in a digital context, several structural prerequisites must be in place. In this regard, the literature offers various models that highlight different fields of development related to digital transformation in education. Internationally, the innovative digital school model (Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2018) is of particular relevance, while in German-speaking countries, the five-dimensions model is widely used (Eickelmann & Gerick, 2017). Many of these frameworks show thematic overlaps and emphasize similar core areas.
Another model developed in Switzerland and empirically validated through a study of Swiss primary schools distinguishes between two key dimensions that influence the integration of digital media in teaching: teacher readiness and school readiness (Petko et al., 2018). While the former directly affects the use of digital technologies in the classroom, school readiness influences this process both directly and indirectly via teacher readiness (Figure 1).
The construct teacher readiness encompasses both teachers’ digital competencies and their attitudes towards digitalization. These are understood as individual characteristics of the teaching staff. Based on theoretical models such as the Will–Skill–Tool model (Knezek et al., 2003), it is assumed that competencies and attitudes are interrelated and jointly influence the integration of digital media into teaching (Petko et al., 2018). The significance of these two dimensions is also reflected in other established frameworks, such as the TPACK model in the area of competencies (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and various models of technology acceptance in the area of attitudes (e.g., Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).
In contrast, school readiness is broader in scope and comprises six distinct dimensions: technical infrastructure and equipment, both formal and informal teacher collaboration, the perceived importance of digital media within the school, clarity of goals regarding media use, and support from school management. Importantly, the latter refers specifically to the promotion of digital integration rather than general support of staff (Petko et al., 2018). In conceptualizing these dimensions, Petko et al. (2018) draw on previous research highlighting, among other things, the role of formal and informal communication among teachers and the influence of school culture in the adoption of digital technologies (e.g., Petko et al., 2015; Prasse, 2012; Somekh, 2008).
While the individual dimensions can be clearly assigned to the overarching categories of teacher readiness and school readiness, it is important to mention that these two levels are not entirely independent. Rather, certain aspects may exert moderating or mediating influences on one another—for example, supportive school leadership behavior might strengthen the relationship between teachers’ attitudes and their actual use of digital media. Such interdependencies do not contradict the distinction between teacher- and school-related dimensions but instead highlight the need to consider their interplay. As such, the model emphasizes the multifaceted nature of digital transformation in schools, which involves both personal and institutional factors (Petko et al., 2018).
When considering the current state of research on this topic, it becomes evident that the state of digital transformation in schools has generally improved. A review of recent studies on digital development in Swiss schools presents an overall positive picture, highlighting steady progress in digital infrastructure and equipment in recent years (Educa, 2021). However, regional disparities persist, with German-speaking cantons often being better equipped, for example, in terms of Wi-Fi availability and the integration of digital media into teaching (Educa, 2021; Oggenfuss & Wolter, 2021; Suter et al., 2023).

2.2. The Role of School Management in Shaping Digital School Improvement Processes

Both the model presented earlier and the relevant literature emphasize the central role of school leadership in the development and advancement of schools. Historically, however, it has not been long since the position of school principal was formally established in Switzerland in its current form. Until the early 2000s, school administration was typically managed collectively by the teaching staff (Anderegg & Breitschaft, 2020; Kruse & Huber, 2021). It was only in the wake of the 2001 PISA results—highlighting, among other things, the positive impact of autonomous school leadership—that principals were widely introduced (Kruse & Huber, 2021; Schleicher, 2009).
In the following years, the profile of school management shifted significantly—from a primarily administrative function to a leadership role with increasing responsibilities and a focus on school improvement (Warwas, 2009). This transition also brought leadership theories from the field of business into the discourse on educational leadership, particularly the concept of transformational leadership, which has been associated with positive outcomes (e.g., Imboden et al., 2020; Klein, 2018; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). In this context, school leaders are increasingly seen as key actors in initiating and guiding school improvement processes (e.g., Cramer et al., 2021; Huber, 2019; Pietsch & Tulowitzki, 2017; Tulowitzki et al., 2019)—a view that also holds true for digital transformation (Breiter, 2019; Dexter, 2018; Gerick & Eickelmann, 2019; Krein, 2023; Tulowitzki et al., 2021; Waffner, 2021).
Empirical research on school management suggests that its influence on student achievement is primarily indirect. By creating supportive conditions for teaching and learning, school management can play a significant role in improving students’ learning environments (e.g., Bonsen, 2016; Bonsen et al., 2002; Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 2010; Heck & Hallinger, 2014; Pietsch et al., 2018). Studies show that transformational and instructional leadership styles are particularly beneficial in this regard (Avolio et al., 1999; Klein, 2018; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990, 2000), while transactional leadership is also considered to have some relevance (Imboden et al., 2020). A combination of different leadership styles appears to be appropriate in the school context (Imboden et al., 2020; McCollum, 2012). A meta-analysis by Hallinger and Heck (2010) further shows that there is a reciprocal relationship between leadership practices and institutional conditions, indicating a dynamic interplay between the two. However, only few studies to date have specifically examined the relationship between a school’s digital development state and the leadership practices of school principals. A selection of empirical results is presented in the following.
A Swiss study by Schmitz et al. (2023) indicates a positive relationship between transformational leadership and teachers’ digital competencies and attitudes—factors that are closely linked to the integration of digital media in the classroom (Petko et al., 2018). A qualitative interview study by Gerick et al. (2023a, 2023b) also highlights the importance of school leadership across various domains of digital transformation, reinforcing its theoretical relevance (cf. Section 2.1).
In another study, a German research team (Eickelmann et al., 2019) investigated whether different school types could be identified based on digital transformation characteristics. This analysis used data from the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2013, an international comparative study examining schools’ digital transformation and students’ digital competencies (e.g., Fraillon et al., 2014). As a first step, so-called “organizationally resilient schools” were identified—schools in which students demonstrated relatively high levels of digital competence despite a comparatively low socioeconomic status. These schools were then analyzed in terms of key digital transformation indicators such as access to digital infrastructure, teachers’ digital competencies, and collaboration between teachers regarding digital media use. In Germany, three school types emerged from the data: competent schools (21.4%), reserved schools (71.4%), and pragmatic schools (7.1%).
Based on this classification, the study explored how school leadership behavior differed across these school types with regard to digital transformation. The analysis focused on how school leaders prioritized digitalization and on specific measures they took to shape the digital change process. The findings revealed that supportive school leadership was most pronounced in the profile of the competent schools—significantly more so than in the reserved or pragmatic ones. These results therefore offer empirical support for theoretical assumptions suggesting that school leadership plays a crucial role in shaping digital transformation processes (e.g., Dexter, 2018; Gerick & Eickelmann, 2019; Krein, 2023; Tulowitzki et al., 2021; Waffner, 2021).

3. Research Questions

Following the previous considerations, it becomes evident that the majority of studies on digital transformation in the school context focus on general education schools. Although the current state of research indicates that the digital development state of Swiss schools can generally be assessed positively (e.g., Educa, 2021), it remains unclear to what extent this also applies to vocational schools. Given their close connection to the world of work, vocational schools represent a particularly relevant object of investigation (e.g., Gonon & Hägi, 2019; Kriesi et al., 2022). Against this background, the following two research questions arise:
  • How can the digital development status of vocational schools in Switzerland be characterized from a school improvement perspective?
  • Can different profiles be identified based on the school management members’ perceptions of the digital development status of their schools?
Building on the theoretical and empirical background presented in Section 2, it is clear that both structural and school-specific factors play a crucial role in the digital transformation of (vocational) schools. Since Switzerland is a federalist country, the structural issue of linguistic region and cantonal affiliation is closely linked to the question of financial resources, as the cantons are responsible for providing these resources. Structural conditions thus shape the opportunities and challenges schools face, while leadership behavior influences how schools strategically respond to these conditions and drive digital development internally.
Existing research suggests regional disparities in favor of the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Since the organization and funding of vocational education involve not only the cantons but also the federal government and private companies (Educa, 2021; SERI, 2022, 2023), the question arises as to whether similar effects can be observed in vocational schools. This leads to the third research question:
3.
To what extent are linguistic region and financial resources related to the school management members’ perception of the digital development status of vocational schools in Switzerland?
Although the literature frequently highlights the central role of school management in initiating and shaping (digitally) school improvement processes, empirical findings in this area remain limited. This gap motivates the fourth research question:
To what extent is (innovative) school leadership behavior related to the school management members’ perception of the digital development status of vocational schools in Switzerland?
4.
The overarching aim of this study is to contribute to the existing state of research by addressing these questions, thereby expanding the empirical evidence on the digital transformation of vocational schools in Switzerland and highlighting the role of school leadership in this context.

4. Methods

4.1. Study Design and Sample

To address the research questions, data were drawn from a quantitative online survey of school management members at vocational schools in Switzerland. The survey was conducted between February and March 2023. Given the heterogeneity in school size and organizational structure, it was up to each individual school principal to decide which individuals from the (extended) school management team would participate in the survey. The questionnaire was available in both German and French.
In total, n = 320 school management members from 135 vocational schools in Switzerland took part in the survey. More than two-thirds of the respondents (67.8%) came from the German-speaking part of Switzerland, while 32.2% worked at schools located in the so-called Latin part of the country, i.e., in the French- or Italian-speaking regions.
Regarding the roles of the respondents, the majority were either (deputy) school principals (44.4%) or heads of departments (46.7%). In addition, teachers (16.4%), IT coordinators (3.6%), and individuals with other school-related responsibilities (7.7%) also participated in the study. It is important to note that multiple selections were possible when indicating these roles.

4.2. Instrument

The questionnaire was designed to assess digital transformation as comprehensively as possible from a school improvement perspective, with particular emphasis on the actions of school leadership. The theoretical foundation for this was the model developed by Petko et al. (2018), as introduced in Section 2.1. Accordingly, all eight conceptual dimensions of the model—two pertaining to teacher readiness and six to school readiness—were measured in alignment with the original framework. The focus, however, was not on the causal relationships between these two domains and the integration of digital media into teaching. Rather, the dimensions served as a reference framework for a broad assessment of the state of digital development from the perspective of school improvement.
For seven of the eight dimensions, the original scales developed by Petko et al. (2018) were employed. Only the dimension assessing teachers’ digital competencies was measured using an alternative scale (Quast et al., 2021), as it was considered more suitable in terms of content. The scales used, along with their means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients, are summarized in Table 1. A detailed description of the items of the individual scales can be found in the appendix (Appendix A).
In addition to the variables related to digital transformation, innovative school leadership practices were measured using three scales (Diel & Steffens, 2010). It is important to note these scales capture general leadership behavior and are not explicitly tied to digitalization. This decision was made deliberately to allow for an investigation of whether general leadership practices—such as how innovations are approached more broadly—also influence the level of digital development within schools. Measuring leadership behavior specifically in the context of digital transformation at this point would risk conflating independent and dependent variables. The corresponding scale scores, including means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients, are presented in Table 2; the items used are also listed in the appendix (Appendix B).
In addition, the questionnaire included two single-item measures: one capturing the linguistic region of the school in which the respondent is employed and another assessing the perceived adequacy of financial resources. Financial resources were rated on a six-point scale ranging from 1 = ‘very poor’ to 6 = ‘very good’. On average, respondents rated their school’s financial resources at M = 4.20 (SD = 1.16).

4.3. Analyses

To analyze the digital development status of vocational schools in Switzerland, examining means and standard deviations is generally appropriate. However, as the scale for formal collaboration was based on a five-point Likert scale—unlike the six-point scales used for the other dimensions—a direct comparison across dimensions is limited. To enhance comparability, a min–max normalization was applied, whereby values were standardized by dividing them by the maximum number of scale points for each variable.
The subsequent methodological approach closely followed the procedure employed by Eickelmann et al. (2019), as described in Section 2.2. First, a latent profile analysis (LPA) was conducted to determine whether distinct groups of school management members could be identified based on the perceived digital development status of their schools. Building on this classification, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed to examine potential differences between the groups with regard to the perceived adequacy of financial resources and innovative school leadership practices.
To investigate a possible relation between the linguistic region and the digital development status, a chi-square test was conducted. All analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 29.0.0.0) and Mplus (version 8.7).

5. Results

The first research question of this paper focuses on how school management members perceive the level of digitalization-related development at vocational schools in Switzerland. The conceptual framework is based on the two dimensions of teacher readiness and the six dimensions of school readiness as defined by Petko et al. (2018), which are visualized in Figure 2. On this scale, a value of 0.00 represents the lowest or least favorable expression, while a value of 1.00 indicates the highest or most favorable expression.
The analysis reveals that all dimensions exceed the theoretical mean value of M = 0.50, indicating consistently positive assessments. The dimensions support from school management (SSM) and technical infrastructure and equipment (TIE) receive particularly high ratings. In contrast, both formal and informal collaboration are rated comparatively lower.
The second research question examined whether distinct groups could be identified among the surveyed school management members based on their perception of their school’s level of digitalization-related development. A latent profile analysis yielded a three-group solution (Appendix C). Although solutions with a higher number of groups were statistically plausible, this approach was considered methodologically appropriate with regard to interpretability (Marsh et al., 2004) and group sizes. According to Masyn (2013) and Wang and Wang (2012), the size of individual profiles should not fall below 5% of the total sample. The resulting three groups are illustrated in Figure 3.
From the analysis, three distinguishable profiles of school management members emerge based on the perception of their schools’ digital development status: those perceiving their schools as digitally advanced, digitally average, and having digital development potential. The majority of respondents (n = 228) belongs to the middle group, followed by the digitally advanced group (n = 61) and those perceiving their schools as having digital development potential (n = 31). The smallest variance between the profiles is observed in the assessment of technical infrastructure and equipment (TIE), whereas the largest differences occur in the dimensions of goal clarity (GC) and importance (IM)—here, values for the most advanced and the least developed school groups differ by nearly three standard deviations.
Subsequently, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine whether the evaluation of financial resources differed among the three groups. The results indicate significant differences: those perceiving their schools as digitally advanced rated their financial resources at M = 4.61 (SD = 1.18), the digitally average group at M = 4.24 (SD = 1.09), and the group perceiving their schools as having digital development potential at M = 3.21 (SD = 1.23). Follow-up post-hoc analyses (Bonferroni) revealed significant differences between the digitally advanced group and the one with development potential (p < 0.001), as well as between the average and less developed groups (p < 0.001). The effect size, with a partial η2 of 0.92, can be classified as medium to large (Ellis, 2010).
To investigate a potential association between the identified profiles and the linguistic region affiliation of the schools, a chi-square test was performed. The results demonstrate a significant relationship (p < 0.001) with a medium effect size (Cramer’s V = 0.267; Ellis, 2010).
The crosstab (Table 3) reveals notable deviations between observed and expected cases, particularly for the profiles of digitally advanced and digital development potential. School management members from the German-speaking part of Switzerland are significantly more likely to be assigned to the most advanced profile and significantly less likely to the least developed profile, whereas the opposite pattern is observed in the Latin-speaking regions. Thus, a significant relation between the perceived digitalization-related development level of vocational schools and the linguistic region can be established—favoring the German-speaking region.
To address the fourth research question, which examines whether a relationship exists between innovative school leadership practices and the digitalization-related development level, further analyses of variance were conducted (Table 4). The results indicate that all three scales measuring innovative leadership behavior are significantly higher in the more advanced profiles compared to the less developed groups. Post-hoc analyses (Tamhane) confirm significant differences in all pairwise comparisons. The effect sizes are consistently in a very high range. Therefore, a strong relation between the perceived level of digital development and innovative school leadership can be inferred.

6. Discussion

6.1. Summary and Interpretation of the Findings

The overarching objective of this paper was to analyze the digital development status of vocational schools in Switzerland and, based on this, to examine the extent to which it is related with specific school characteristics and innovative school leadership practices. To address this research aim, four research questions were formulated.
The first research question explored how the digital development status of vocational schools in Switzerland is generally perceived. The findings indicate that it is largely assessed positively by the participating school management members—a result that aligns with previous studies (Educa, 2021). At the same time, the data reveal differences across the various dimensions of digital transformation. The technical infrastructure and equipment (TIE) and the support from school management (SSM) received particularly high ratings, whereas dimensions such as formal collaboration (FC) were identified as having potential for further improvement.
The second research question, following the approach of Eickelmann et al. (2019), aimed to identify whether participants could be clustered into different groups based on their assessments of their school’s digital development status The analysis yielded three distinct profiles of respondents: those perceiving their schools as digitally advanced, digitally average, and having digital development potential. The majority of the school management members (n = 228) were assigned to the intermediate group. A closer look at the profiles shows that the extent of variation across the individual dimensions differs between the groups. While only small differences were found in relation to technical infrastructure and equipment (TIE), greater variance was observed in formal (FC) and informal collaboration (IC). Although the study by Eickelmann et al. (2019) also identified distinct school profiles in terms of digitalization, a direct comparison is not possible, as the state of digital transformation was operationalized differently, and their analysis focused on schools themselves rather than on groups of school management members.
Building on this profiling, the study then examined whether there were relations between the perceived digital development status and (1) the linguistic region and (2) the perceptions of financial resources. In both cases, the results were consistent with expectations: schools located in the German-speaking part of Switzerland showed significantly higher levels of digital development—a pattern also found in general education settings (Educa, 2021; Oggenfuss & Wolter, 2021; Suter et al., 2023). Furthermore, the findings regarding resource availability suggest that adequate funding appears to be a key prerequisite for successful digital transformation in schools.
The fourth and final research question investigated the relationship between innovative school leadership and the perceived digital development status. The findings demonstrate that innovative leadership practices are significantly more pronounced in the more digitally advanced profiles compared to the less developed groups. Effect sizes across all comparisons were large. These results reinforce the widely discussed importance of school leadership in the context of digital transformation processes (e.g., Dexter, 2018; Gerick & Eickelmann, 2019; Krein, 2023; Tulowitzki et al., 2021; Waffner, 2021). They highlight that innovative leadership practices—much like transformational leadership (see Schmitz et al., 2023)—is related with positive school-level developments in terms of digital transformation.
In summary, the findings of this study are broadly consistent with existing research from the general education sector in Switzerland and suggest that these insights are transferable to vocational education and training (VET) settings. The observed effects related to the linguistic region and the financial resources also provide concrete starting points for education policy—for example, through regionally targeted funding initiatives or tailored support for schools with specific needs. Moreover, the results underscore the growing importance of strategic leadership roles in schools, particularly in terms of establishing conditions that foster innovation and school improvement in general. Against this background, it seems essential to align initial training and continuing professional development for (prospective) school leaders with the goal of building relevant leadership competencies and enabling their effective application in practice.

6.2. Limitations

Several limitations must be considered when interpreting the results, which are discussed below. First, the study relied exclusively on data collected from school management members. While this decision aligns well with the thematic focus of the study, it introduces a methodological limitation: the possibility of a common method bias cannot be ruled out (cf. Söhnchen, 2007). This refers to the fact that both the independent and dependent variables were assessed by the same individuals, which may lead to biases in variable distributions and relations.
In addition, schools were allowed to decide for themselves which members of their extended leadership teams would participate in the survey. This led, on the one hand, to a varying number of respondents per school. This unequal representation across schools as well as the nested data structure—individuals within schools—should be taken into account when interpreting the results. Accordingly, no direct conclusions should be drawn at the school level based on individual perceptions. On the other hand, it is plausible that perceptions of the school’s digital development status differ depending on the roles and areas of responsibility of the respondents. As a result, members from the same school were in some cases assigned to different profiles in the latent profile analysis. However, this outcome may be substantively reasonable. It is conceivable that individuals within the same school might hold different views—for example, regarding goal clarity (GC) or informal collaboration (IC). Therefore, when interpreting the findings, it is important to keep in mind that the data reflect subjective perceptions of school management members. Objective indicators—such as the number of digital devices available—were not included in the analyses.
At the same time, the variation in perceptions of the digital development status within the same school, and the resulting assignment of school management members to different profiles, opens up important considerations for future research. Such differences may reflect underlying leadership dynamics within schools. They could indicate a lack of shared vision or inconsistent communication, but may also represent a diversity of legitimate perspectives that naturally arise from differentiated responsibilities and experiences within leadership teams. In this sense, the existence of multiple perspectives within a single school could potentially be viewed not as a weakness, but as a constructive resource for school development. Future studies could explore these dynamics more closely, examining the implications of perceptual diversity for leadership practice and organizational learning in schools.
Another potential source of bias lies in the fact that school management members were also asked to assess their own innovative leadership practices. In this context, socially desirable responses cannot be entirely ruled out. However, any systematic overestimation would likely affect the overall level of reported innovative leadership practices rather than the differences between the identified profiles.
Lastly, it should be noted that school leadership is a complex and multidimensional construct. In this study, it was operationalized using only three scales related to innovative leadership practices. Future research would benefit from a more differentiated approach that captures a broader range of leadership dimensions.

7. Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that the digital development status of Swiss vocational schools is generally positive. At the same time, the findings highlight the need for a more differentiated analysis—both in terms of the various dimensions of digital transformation and in regard to school-specific differences, such as linguistic region or leadership practices.
A key insight from this study is the significant role played by school leadership in initiating and shaping (digital) school improvement processes. The function and leadership behavior of school management prove to be crucial drivers of progress at the school level. From an educational policy perspective—and in line with a systemic view—this underscores the need for school management members to possess the necessary leadership competencies. This, in turn, implies a responsibility on the part of the education system to provide appropriate support structures and qualification opportunities—both in initial training and through ongoing professional development. Without such supportive conditions, it would be unreasonable to expect school management to guide schools effectively in increasingly dynamic environments.
For future research, it would be valuable to further investigate the causes of regional disparities between linguistic areas in Switzerland. While the higher importance of the dual system in the German-speaking region offers a preliminary explanation (cf. Kriesi et al., 2022), additional contextual and sociocultural factors are likely to play a role as well (Educa, 2021; Suter et al., 2023). In this context, it would also be desirable for future studies to examine the relationships between linguistic regional affiliation and school leadership behavior. Understanding how regional contexts influence leadership practices could provide deeper insights into the mechanisms driving digital transformation in vocational schools.
Moreover, recent developments suggest that the importance of principals and school management members as agents of change will continue to grow. Further empirical studies are therefore needed to deepen the evidence base and provide policymakers with a solid foundation for targeted actions in this area. At the same time, future research should also focus on other school actors—particularly teachers—who also play an essential role in successful school improvement. A multiperspective research approach that incorporates the views of various actors within the school system would be especially beneficial here (Petko et al., 2018; Suter et al., 2023). It seems quite likely that different stakeholders—also in the context of digital transformation—may perceive the situation in schools differently (Rauseo et al., 2022).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.H.; methodology, A.H.; formal analysis, A.H.; investigation, A.H.; writing—original draft preparation, A.H.; writing—review and editing, A.H. and S.S.; supervision, S.S.; project administration, S.S.; funding acquisition, S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study is based on data from the project ‘Digital Transformation in Vocational Education and the Role of School Management’, conducted from 2019 to 2023 in collaboration between HES-SO Valais-Wallis and the University of Konstanz, with financial support from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Konstanz (protocol code IRB25KN007-02/w and date of 9 July 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We thank Deborah Glassey-Previdoli and Serge Imboden for their contributions and support in the successful realization of this project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. DCT: Digital competencies of teachers (Quast et al., 2021, p. 337).
Table A1. DCT: Digital competencies of teachers (Quast et al., 2021, p. 337).
Itemsα
Teachers can critically evaluate information, sources of information, and data in digital spaces.0.88
Teachers can apply rules of conduct in digital interactions and collaborations.
Teachers can present digital content in various formats.
Teachers are aware of dangers and risks in digital environments and take them into account.
Teachers can use digital tools, applications, and platforms according to needs.
Teachers understand how the digital space works and know its basic principles.
Teachers can analyze the effects of media in the digital space.
Table A2. AT: Attitudes of teachers regarding digitalization (Petko et al., 2018, p. 18).
Table A2. AT: Attitudes of teachers regarding digitalization (Petko et al., 2018, p. 18).
Itemsα
Teachers find the use of digital media in the classroom helpful for supporting students’ educational development.0.79
Teachers believe they can better support students in academic matters when using digital media in the classroom.
Using digital media in the classroom brings advantages for teachers.
Table A3. TIE: Technical infrastructure and equipment (Petko et al., 2018, p. 16).
Table A3. TIE: Technical infrastructure and equipment (Petko et al., 2018, p. 16).
Items|How Satisfied Are you with the…α
…digital equipment (number of devices, performance, availability) at your school?0.80
…reliability of the network and internet (speed, outages, etc.) at your school?
…software equipment (scope, up-to-dateness) at your school?
…support for technical problems at your school?
Table A4. IC: Informal collaboration (Petko et al., 2018, p. 16).
Table A4. IC: Informal collaboration (Petko et al., 2018, p. 16).
Itemsα
Teachers work closely together in developing and implementing IT-supported teaching units.0.80
Teachers discuss their experiences regarding the possible uses of digital technologies in teaching in great detail.
Teachers are well informed about how colleagues from other areas use IT.
Table A5. FC: Formal collaboration (Petko et al., 2018, p. 16).
Table A5. FC: Formal collaboration (Petko et al., 2018, p. 16).
Items|How Often…α
…do teachers at your school present something related to the use of digital technologies in teaching (e.g., in conferences, via notices)?0.80
…do internal school information events on the topic of digital technologies in teaching take place at your school?
…are experiences exchanged with external partners/schools (e.g., invitations to lectures, excursions)?
Table A6. GC: Goal clarity (regarding ICT) (Petko et al., 2018, p. 17).
Table A6. GC: Goal clarity (regarding ICT) (Petko et al., 2018, p. 17).
Itemsα
I am clear about our school’s goals for the use of digital media.0.80
The pedagogical-didactic ideas of the teachers regarding the use of digital media can be brought to a common denominator.
Teachers at our school feel committed to the shared goals for the use of digital media.
Table A7. IM: Importance of ICT (Petko et al., 2018, p. 17).
Table A7. IM: Importance of ICT (Petko et al., 2018, p. 17).
Itemsα
There is a consensus at our school on the importance of the topic “digital media.”0.80
At our school, great value is placed on teachers receiving professional development in digital technologies.
Particularly strong commitment to the use of digital technologies in teaching is highly appreciated by other teachers.
Table A8. SSM: Support from school management (Petko et al., 2018, p. 17).
Table A8. SSM: Support from school management (Petko et al., 2018, p. 17).
Itemsα
The school management clearly supports the integration of digital media into education.0.80
Teachers with new ideas for using digital media are actively supported by the school management.
The school management is well informed by teachers about how digital media are being used.

Appendix B

Table A9. IM: Innovative mindset (Diel & Steffens, 2010).
Table A9. IM: Innovative mindset (Diel & Steffens, 2010).
Items|As the School Management Team, …α
…we have a vision for the future of our school.0.89
…we ensure that all stakeholders of the school are involved in the development of the school’s guiding principles.
…we look for new ways to improve the work at our school.
…we are actively involved in the development process.
Table A10. ISP: Initiating and shaping innovative processes (Diel & Steffens, 2010).
Table A10. ISP: Initiating and shaping innovative processes (Diel & Steffens, 2010).
Items|As the School Management Team, …α
…we make use of the flexibility provided by the legal framework for school development.0.88
…we are able to motivate the teaching staff to engage in innovative work.
…we take up ideas from the teaching staff.
…we promote binding structures of cooperation among the teaching staff.
…we support the teaching staff in implementing measures that foster instructional development.
…we provide time and space resources for school development work.
…we ensure that initiatives we launch include manageable interim steps.
Table A11. ESD: Establishing structures for development processes (Diel & Steffens, 2010).
Table A11. ESD: Establishing structures for development processes (Diel & Steffens, 2010).
Items|As the School Management Team, …α
…we understand quality development as an ongoing task and create structures to support it.0.87
…we ensure that common agreements are implemented in a binding manner.
…we set clear expectations regarding the performance of the teaching staff.
…we ensure that teachers agree on clear goals and align their actions accordingly.
…we delegate tasks to the teaching staff.

Appendix C

Table A12. Latent profile analysis (LPA).
Table A12. Latent profile analysis (LPA).
No. of ProfilesFree ParametersAICBICaBICEntropyVLMRT
1 profile solution165497.165557.455506.70n/an/a
2 profiles solution254994.775088.985009.680.8320.320
3 profiles solution344719.654847.774739.930.8490.553
4 profiles solution434590.154752.194615.800.8450.070
Note: Lowest/highest values in bold.

References

  1. Anderegg, N., & Breitschaft, J. (2020). Aus- und Weiterbildung von Schulleitenden in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz [Training and professional development of school principals in German-speaking Switzerland]. DDS—Die Deutsche Schule, 112(3), 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bonsen, M. (2003). Schule, Führung, Organisation. eine empirische Studie zum Organisations- und Führungsverständnis von Schulleiterinnen und Schulleitern [School, leadership, organization: An empirical study on principals’ understanding of organization and leadership]. Waxmann. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bonsen, M. (2016). Schulleitung und Führung in der Schule [Principals and leadership in schools]. In H. Altrichter, & K. Maag Merki (Eds.), Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem (pp. 301–324). Springer VS. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bonsen, M., von der Gathen, J., Iglhaut, C., & Pfeiffer, H. (2002). Die Wirksamkeit von Schulleitung: Empirische Annäherungen an ein Gesamtmodell schulischen Leitungshandelns [The effectiveness of school leadership: Empirical approaches to a comprehensive model of school leadership practices]. Juventa. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bosshard, S. (2018). Berufsbildung 2030. Einbindung der Akteure in den Schweizer Strategieentwicklungsprozess [Vocational education and training 2030: Involvement of stakeholders in the Swiss strategy development process]. Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis—BWP, 47(6), 30–31. [Google Scholar]
  7. Brauckmann, S., Böse, S., Wagner-Herrbach, C., & Warwas, J. (2019). Schulleitungshandeln und Schulentwicklung im Kontext Neuer Steuerungskonzepte [School leadership practices and school development in the context of new governance concepts]. In U. Steffens, & P. Posch (Eds.), Lehrerprofessionalität und Schulqualität. Grundlagen der Qualität von Schule 4 (pp. 395–414). Waxmann. [Google Scholar]
  8. Breiter, A. (2019). Educational technology governance und die Rolle der Schulleitung im Zuge der digitalen Transformation [Educational technology governance and the role of school leadership in the course of digital transformation]. In S. G. Huber (Ed.), Jahrbuch Schulleitung 2019. Befunde und Impulse zu den Handlungsfeldern des Schulmanagements (pp. 245–258). Carl Link. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cramer, C., Groß Ophoff, J., Pietsch, M., & Tulowitzki, P. (2021). Schulleitung in Deutschland. Repräsentative Befunde zur Attraktivität, zu Karrieremotiven und zu Arbeitsplatzwechselabsichten [School leadership in Germany: Representative findings on attractiveness, career motives, and intentions to change jobs]. DDS—Die Deutsche Schule, 113(2), 132–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dexter, S. (2018). The role of leadership for information technology in education. Systems of practices. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 483–498). Springer International. [Google Scholar]
  11. Diel, E., & Steffens, U. (2010). Fragebögen zum Schulleitungshandeln. Hessischer Referenzrahmen Schulqualität (HRS). Qualitätsbereich III “Führung und Management” [Questionnaires on school leadership practices. Hessian reference framework for school quality (HRS). Quality area III “Leadership and management”]. Institut für Qualitätsentwicklung. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ebner, C., & Nikolai, R. (2010). Duale oder schulische Berufsausbildung? Entwicklungen und Weichenstellungen in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz [Dual or school-based vocational education? Developments and strategic decisions in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland]. Swiss Political Science Review, 16(4), 617–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ecoplan AG. (2017). Berufsbildung 2030. Vision und strategische Leitlinien. Hintergrundbericht zum Leitbild [Vocational education and training 2030: Vision and strategic guidelines. Background report on the guiding principles]. Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). [Google Scholar]
  14. Educa. (2021). Digitalisierung in der Bildung [Digitalization in education]. Educa. [Google Scholar]
  15. Eickelmann, B., & Gerick, J. (2017). Lehren und Lernen mit digitalen Medien—Zielsetzungen, Rahmenbedingungen und Implikationen für die Schulentwicklung [Teaching and learning with digital media—Objectives, framework conditions, and implications for school improvement]. In K. Scheiter, & T. Riecke-Baulecke (Eds.), Lehren und Lernen mit digitalen Medien. Strategien, internationale Trends und pädagogische Orientierungen (pp. 54–81). Oldenbourg. [Google Scholar]
  16. Eickelmann, B., Gerick, J., & Vennemann, M. (2019). Unerwartet erfolgreiche Schulen im digitalen Zeitalter. Eine Analyse von Schulmerkmalen resilienter Schultypen auf Grundlage der IEA-Studie ICILS 2013 [Unexpectedly successful schools in the digital age: An analysis of school characteristics of resilient school types based on the IEA ICILS 2013 study]. Journal for Educational Research Online, 11(1), 118–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ellis, P. D. (2010). Effect sizes and the interpretation of research results in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1581–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age. The IEA international computer and information literacy study international report. Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gerick, J., & Eickelmann, B. (2019). Schulentwicklungsprozesse mit digitalen Medien—Pädagogisches Leitungshandeln im Kontext der Digitalisierung [School development processes with digital media: Pedagogical leadership practices in the context of digitalization]. In S. G. Huber (Ed.), Jahrbuch Schulleitung 2019. Impulse aus Wissenschaft und Praxis (pp. 259–278). Carl Link. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gerick, J., Eickelmann, B., Panten, B., Rothärmel, A., Rau, M., & Gottschalk, T. (2023a). Abschlussbericht zum Forschungsprojekt “Gelingensbedingungen und Transfer von erfolgreichen Digitalisierungsprozessen an Schulen in Nordrhein-Westfalen (GuTe DigiSchulen NRW)” [Final report on the research project “Success factors and transfer of successful digitalization processes in schools in North Rhine-Westphalia (GuTe DigiSchulen NRW)”]. TU Braunschweig/Universität Paderborn. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gerick, J., Eickelmann, B., Rau, M., Panten, B., Rothärmel, A., & Gottschalk, T. (2023b). Digitalisierungsbezogene Schulentwicklungsprozesse erfolgreich gestalten. Handreichung für die schulische Arbeit zu den Ergebnissen des Forschungsprojekts „GuTe DigiSchulen NRW” [Successfully shaping digitalization-related school development processes: A guide for school practice based on the results of the research project “GuTe DigiSchulen NRW”]. TU Braunschweig. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gonon, P., & Hägi, L. (2019). Expansion und Differenzierung der Berufsbildung in der Schweiz (1960–2010) [Expansion and differentiation of vocational education and training in Switzerland (1960–2010)]. BWP@ Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gräsel, C., Schledjewski, J., & Hartmann, U. (2020). Implementation digitaler Medien als Schulentwicklungsaufgabe [Implementation of digital media as a school development task]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 66(2), 208–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). The principal’s role in school effectiveness: An assessment of methodological progress, 1980–1995. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, P. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 723–781). Kluwer. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2014). Modeling the longitudinal effects of school leadership on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 653–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Huber, S. G. (2019). Führung und Management von Schulen: Anforderungen, Aufgaben und Kompetenzen von Schulleitung [Leadership and management of schools: Requirements, tasks, and competencies of school principals]. In U. Steffens, & P. Posch (Eds.), Lehrerprofessionalität und Schulqualität. Grundlagen der Qualität von Schule 4 (pp. 373–394). Waxmann. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ilomäki, L., & Lakkala, M. (2018). Digital technology and practices for school improvement: Innovative digital school model. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Imboden, S., Schumann, S., & Conrad, M. (2020). Leitungshandeln an beruflichen Schulen. Eine empirische Bestandsaufnahme und Wege zur Förderung [Leadership practices in vocational schools: An empirical survey and ways to support development]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 66(5), 699–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Klein, E. D. (2018). Erfolgreiches Schulleitungshandeln an Schulen in sozial deprivierter Lage. Eine Zusammenschau zentraler Grundlagen und Befunde aus der nationalen und internationalen Bildungsforschung. Expertise im Auftrag der Wübben Stiftung [Successful school leadership practices in schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged contexts: A summary of key foundations and findings from national and international educational research. Expert report commissioned by the Wübben Foundation]. Universität Duisburg-Essen. [Google Scholar]
  31. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Fluke, R. (2003, April 21–25). Testing a will, skill, tool model of technology integration. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, USA. Available online: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED475762.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2025).
  32. Krein, U. (2023). What’s your take on school leadership and digitalization? A systematic review of publications from the last 20 years. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kriesi, I., Bonoli, L., Grønning, M., Hänni, M., Neumann, J., & Schweri, J. (2022). Spannungsfelder in der Berufsbildung international und in der Schweiz—Entwicklungen, Herausforderungen, Potentiale [Tensions in vocational education internationally and in Switzerland: Developments, challenges, and potentials]. OBS EHB Trendbericht 5. Eidgenössische Hochschule für Berufsbildung (EHB). [Google Scholar]
  34. Kruse, C., & Huber, S. G. (2021). Schulleitung zwischen Alltagsbewältigung und Schulentwicklung—Thesen aus einer qualitativen multiperspektivischen Arbeitsplatzanalyse [School leadership between daily routine management and school development: Findings from a qualitative multiperspective workplace analysis]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, 43(3), 349–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(4), 249–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Masyn, K. E. (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In T. Little (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods (pp. 551–611). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. McCollum, J. (2012). A study of the leadership dimensions of national distinguished principals [Ph.D. dissertation, Nova Southeastern University]. [Google Scholar]
  40. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Negrini, L. (2015). Subjektive Überzeugungen von Berufsbildnern. Stand und Zusammenhänge mit der Ausbildungsqualität und den Lehrvertragsauflösungen [Subjective beliefs of vocational trainers: Status and relationships with training quality and apprenticeship contract terminations]. Springer VS. [Google Scholar]
  42. Oggenfuss, C., & Wolter, S. C. (2021). Monitoring der Digitalisierung der Bildung aus der Sicht der Schülerinnen und Schüler [Monitoring digitalization in education from the perspective of students]. SKBF. [Google Scholar]
  43. Petko, D., Antonietti, C., Schmitz, M.-L., Consoli, T., Gonon, P., & Cattaneo, A. (2022). Digitale Transformation der Sekundarstufe II: Erste Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bestandsaufnahme in der Schweiz [Digital transformation of upper secondary education: First results of a representative survey in Switzerland]. Gymnasium Helveticum, 76(5), 20–21. [Google Scholar]
  44. Petko, D., Egger, N., Cantieni, A., & Wespi, B. (2015). Digital media adoption in schools: Bottom-up, top-down, complementary or optional? Computers & Education, 84, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Petko, D., Prasse, D., & Cantieni, A. (2018). The interplay of school readiness and teacher readiness for educational technology integration: A structural equation model. Computers in the Schools, 35(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pietsch, M., & Tulowitzki, P. (2017). Disentangling school leadership and its ties to instructional practices—An empirical comparison of various leadership styles. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(4), 629–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pietsch, M., Tulowitzki, P., & Koch, T. (2018). On the differential and shared effects of leadership for learning on teachers’ organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A multilevel perspective. Education Administration Quarterly, 55(5), 705–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Prasse, D. (2012). Bedingungen innovativen Handelns in Schulen: Funktion und Interaktion von Innovationsbereitschaft, Innovationsklima und Akteursnetzwerken am Beispiel der IKT-Integration an Schulen [Conditions for innovative action in schools: Function and interaction of willingness to innovate, innovation climate, and actor networks using the example of ICT integration in schools]. Waxmann. [Google Scholar]
  49. Quast, J., Rubach, C., & Lazarides, R. (2021). Lehrkräfteeinschätzungen zu Unterrichtsqualität mit digitalen Medien: Zusammenhänge zur wahrgenommenen technischen Schulausstattung, Medienunterstützung, digitalen Kompetenzselbsteinschätzungen und Wertüberzeugungen [Teacher assessments of instructional quality with digital media: Relationships with perceived school technology, media support, self-assessed digital competencies, and value beliefs]. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 11, 309–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rauseo, M., Harder, A., Glassey-Previdoli, D., Cattaneo, A., Schumann, S., & Imboden, S. (2022). Same, but different? Digital transformation in Swiss vocational schools from the perspectives of school management and teachers. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28, 407–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schleicher, A. (2009). Moderne Schulleitung im Wandel. Schlussfolgerungen aus OECD-Analysen [Modern school leadership in transition: Conclusions from OECD analyses]. DDS—Die Deutsche Schule, 101(4), 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schmitz, M.-L., Antonietti, C., Consoli, T., Cattaneo, A., Gonon, P., & Petko, D. (2023). Transformational leadership for technology integration in schools: Empowering teachers to use technology in a more demanding way. Computers & Education, 204, 104880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) (Ed.). (2022). Berufsbildung in der Schweiz. Fakten und Zahlen 2022 [Vocational education and training in Switzerland: Facts and figures 2022]. Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). [Google Scholar]
  54. Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) (Ed.). (2023). Bildungsbericht Schweiz 2023 [Education report Switzerland 2023]. Schweizerische Koordinationsstelle für Bildungsforschung. [Google Scholar]
  55. Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 449–460). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Söhnchen, F. (2007). Common method variance und single source bias. In A. Albers, D. Klapper, U. Konradt, A. Walter, & J. Wolf (Eds.), Methodik der empirischen forschung (pp. 135–150). Gabler. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Suter, F., Maag Merki, K., Feldhoff, T., Arndt, M., Castelli, L., Gyger Gaspoz, D., Jude, N., Mehmeti, T., Melfi, G., Plata, A., Radisch, F., Selcik, F., Sposato, G., & Zaugg, A. (2023). Erfahrungen von Schulleiter*innen in der deutsch-, italienisch- und französischsprachigen Schweiz im Schuljahr 2021/2022 während der COVID-19-Pandemie. Zentrale Ergebnisse aus der Studie «S-CLEVER+. Schulentwicklung vor neuen Herausforderungen» [Experiences of school principals in the German-, Italian-, and French-speaking regions of Switzerland in the 2021/2022 school year during the COVID-19 pandemic: Key findings from the study «S-CLEVER+. School development facing new challenges»]. Available online: www.s-clever.org (accessed on 5 May 2025).
  58. Trampusch, C. (2010). Employers, the state and the politics of institutional change: Vocational education and training in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. European Journal of Political Research, 49(4), 545–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tulowitzki, P., Grigoleit, E., Haiges, J., Kruse, C., & Gerick, J. (2021). Schulleitungen und digitale Schulentwicklung. Impulse zur Stärkung von Professionalisierungsangeboten [School leadership and digital school development: Recommendations for strengthening professional development opportunities]. Forum Bildung Digitalisierung. [Google Scholar]
  60. Tulowitzki, P., Hinzen, I., & Roller, M. (2019). Die Qualifizierung von Schulleiter*innen in Deutschland—Ein bundesweiter Überblick [The professional qualification of school principals in Germany: A nationwide overview]. DDS—Die Deutsche Schule, 111(2), 149–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Waffner, B. (2021). Schulentwicklung in der digital geprägten Welt: Strategien, Rahmenbedingungen und Implikationen für Schulleitungshandeln [School development in a digitally shaped world: Strategies, framework conditions, and implications for school leadership practices]. In A. Wilmers, M. Achenbach, & C. Keller (Eds.), Bildung im digitalen Wandel. Organisationsentwicklung in Bildungseinrichtungen (pp. 67–103). Waxmann. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. John Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  64. Warwas, J. (2009). Berufliches Selbstverständnis und Beanspruchung in der Schulleitung [Professional self-concept and occupational strain in school leadership]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 12, 475–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 15 01099 g001
Figure 1. Effects of school readiness and teacher readiness on the integration of digital media (Petko et al., 2018, p. 7).
Figure 1. Effects of school readiness and teacher readiness on the integration of digital media (Petko et al., 2018, p. 7).
Education 15 01099 g001
Education 15 01099 g002
Figure 2. Perception of the level of digitalization-related development.
Figure 2. Perception of the level of digitalization-related development.
Education 15 01099 g002
Education 15 01099 g003
Figure 3. Three-group-solution reg. the level of digitalization-related development (z-standardized).
Figure 3. Three-group-solution reg. the level of digitalization-related development (z-standardized).
Education 15 01099 g003
Table 1. Measured variables regarding digital transformation.
Table 1. Measured variables regarding digital transformation.
Scales (No. of Items)M (SD)α
Teacher readiness
  DCT: Digital competencies of teachers (7) 14.32 (0.59)0.88
  AT: Attitudes of teachers regarding digitalization (3) 14.16 (0.79)0.79
School readiness
  TIE: Technical infrastructure and equipment (4) 14.63 (0.80)0.80
  IC: Informal collaboration (3) 13.72 (0.83)0.80
  FC: Formal collaboration (3) 22.95 (0.71)0.80
  GC: Goal clarity (regarding ICT) (3) 14.08 (0.80)0.80
  IM: Importance of ICT (3) 14.42 (0.75)0.77
  SSM: Support from school management (3) 14.89 (0.73)0.79
M = mean, SD = standard deviation, α = Cronbach’s α. 1 six-point Likert scale; 2 five-point Likert scale.
Table 2. Measured variables regarding innovative school management behavior.
Table 2. Measured variables regarding innovative school management behavior.
Scales (No. of Items)M (SD)α
IM: Innovative mindset (4)4.93 (0.78)0.89
ISP: Initiating and shaping innovative processes (7)4.66 (0.69)0.88
ESD: Establishing structures for development processes (5)4.74 (0.72)0.87
M = mean, SD = standard deviation, α = Cronbach’s α, six-point Likert scale.
Table 3. Analysis of potential language regional effects (crosstab).
Table 3. Analysis of potential language regional effects (crosstab).
Digitally Advanced Digitally Average Digital Development PotentialTotal
German-speaking Switzerlandn5116111223
Expected n42.5158.921.6223
Latin
Switzerland		n10672097
Expected n18.569.19.497
Totaln6122831320
Expected n6122831320
Table 4. Analysis of potential differences regarding innovative school management behavior.
Table 4. Analysis of potential differences regarding innovative school management behavior.
Digitally AdvancedDigitally AverageDigital Development PotentialFpη2
M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)
IM5.53 (0.43)4.91 (0.65)3.85 (0.92)70.38<0.0010.322
ISP5.20 (0.41)4.63 (0.53)3.74 (1.01)66.98<0.0010.310
ESD5.21 (0.50)4.72 (0.57)3.85 (1.06)47.93<0.0010.245
M = mean, SD = standard deviation, six-point Likert scale.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Harder, A.; Schumann, S. Digital Transformation of Vocational Schools in Switzerland: The Importance of Innovative School Management Behavior. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1099. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091099

AMA Style

Harder A, Schumann S. Digital Transformation of Vocational Schools in Switzerland: The Importance of Innovative School Management Behavior. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(9):1099. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091099

Chicago/Turabian Style

Harder, Andreas, and Stephan Schumann. 2025. "Digital Transformation of Vocational Schools in Switzerland: The Importance of Innovative School Management Behavior" Education Sciences 15, no. 9: 1099. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091099

APA Style

Harder, A., & Schumann, S. (2025). Digital Transformation of Vocational Schools in Switzerland: The Importance of Innovative School Management Behavior. Education Sciences, 15(9), 1099. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091099

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop