Chinese School Leaders Show Enthusiasm for AI but Lag in Practical Digital Skills, Study Finds

Artificial intelligence is moving into classrooms faster than almost any other educational technology in recent memory, promising to reshape how students learn, how teachers assess progress, and how schools are run. Yet the people charged with steering that transformation—school administrators and educational leaders—may be less prepared than the technology demands. A new large-scale survey of 1,426 educational administrators in China’s Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region has uncovered a striking discrepancy between what school leaders think about digital technologies and what they can actually do with them, a phenomenon the researchers describe as an “implementation gap.” The findings, published online on October 10, 2026, in the peer-reviewed journal ECNU Review of Education, offer one of the most detailed empirical portraits to date of educational digital leadership in the age of AI.

The study was led by Xibei Xiong of Guangxi Normal University, working with colleagues from Xuchang University, Shanghai Normal University, the University at Buffalo in the United States, and The Education University of Hong Kong. Together, the team designed a new measurement instrument grounded in the Attitude–Cognition–Capability (ACC) model, a framework that treats digital leadership as three distinct but interrelated dimensions: how leaders feel about digital technologies, how well they understand them conceptually, and how effectively they can deploy them in real institutional settings. By separating these dimensions, the researchers could pinpoint precisely where administrators’ preparedness breaks down—something earlier, more monolithic measures of technology leadership could not do.

The results paint a nuanced picture. Overall, the administrators exhibited a moderately high level of digital leadership, and their attitudes toward digital technologies were generally positive. Their cognitive understanding—grasp of what digital tools can do and how they fit into educational strategy—was also reasonable. But when it came to practical capability, the ability to actually implement, manage, and lead digital initiatives, scores dropped noticeably. In other words, many administrators believe in the promise of AI and digital tools and can articulate their potential, yet lack the hands-on competence to translate that belief into institutional change. This gap between intention and execution is the study’s central finding, and it carries significant implications for how education systems around the world prepare leaders for technological transformation.

Beyond the aggregate scores, the team applied latent profile analysis, a statistical technique that identifies hidden subgroups within a population based on response patterns. This analysis revealed four distinct digital leadership profiles among the surveyed administrators. The first group, labeled Hesitant Adopters, shows reluctance or uncertainty toward digital technologies and limited capability. The second, Enthusiastic Implementers, combines strong positive attitudes with active engagement, though potentially without the deepest conceptual grounding. The third group, Balanced Moderates, displays even, moderate levels across attitude, cognition, and capability. Finally, Comprehensive Experts represent the ideal: administrators who score highly on all three dimensions and can genuinely lead AI-era transformation. The existence of these four profiles suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach to leadership development would miss the mark for most administrators.

“Unlike previous studies, we offer a multidimensional, empirically validated account of educational digital leadership in the AI era, based on large-scale data from China,” the authors, Xiong and colleagues, explain in the paper. This multidimensional framing matters because educational digital leadership is not simply a matter of personal enthusiasm for gadgets. As the researchers define it, EDL is the competency to integrate digital technologies strategically, foster innovation, and ensure that implementation is both equitable and ethical. In the AI era, that definition takes on added weight: school leaders must now weigh questions of data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the shifting role of educators while simultaneously championing personalized learning and streamlined administration.

One of the study’s most surprising results concerns which background factors actually predict strong digital leadership. Gender and educational attainment emerged as consistently associated with higher digital leadership scores, whereas age, years of work experience, and administrative position played far more limited roles. Simply put, having led schools for many years does not automatically make an administrator a stronger digital leader. This finding challenges a common assumption that seniority equates to readiness for technological change, and it suggests that experience built in a pre-digital era may not transfer directly to the demands of AI-mediated education.

Equally important is what the demographic factors did not explain. Gender, education, age, and experience together accounted for only a small fraction of the variation in digital leadership between administrators. The researchers interpret this as evidence that broader environmental conditions—such as a school’s digital culture, access to technological resources, and alignment with higher-level policy—may matter even more than individual characteristics. If that interpretation holds, then improving digital leadership is not solely a matter of recruiting or training particular individuals; it requires building institutional ecosystems in which capable leadership can flourish. A talented administrator placed in a school without infrastructure, support, or policy backing may achieve far less than a modestly skilled one embedded in a digitally mature environment.

Based on the four profiles, the research team recommends differentiated professional development pathways rather than uniform training. For Hesitant Adopters, the priority is confidence-building: workshops and supportive experiences that reduce anxiety and build basic familiarity with digital tools. For Enthusiastic Implementers, who already possess drive and energy, the recommendation is advanced training in AI ethics and data governance, ensuring that their enthusiasm is channeled responsibly. Balanced Moderates would benefit from targeted development that pushes all three dimensions forward in tandem, while Comprehensive Experts might serve as mentors, change agents, and models within their systems. This profile-based approach reflects a broader trend in educational research toward precision in professional development—matching interventions to actual needs rather than applying the same curriculum to everyone.

The study’s implications extend well beyond Guangxi or even China. Education systems worldwide are racing to integrate AI into teaching and administration, often focusing their preparation efforts on teachers and students. This research argues that such efforts are incomplete without parallel investment in school leaders. Administrators set budgets, choose platforms, design policies, and shape institutional culture; if they lack practical digital capability, even the best teacher training and the most advanced tools may stall at the classroom door. The implementation gap identified here is therefore not merely a Chinese problem but a structural challenge for any education system undergoing rapid digital transformation.

“Preparing school leaders—not just teachers and students—is a critical piece of the puzzle of educational change in the age of AI,” concludes Professor Hui Li of The Education University of Hong Kong, the study’s senior author. The researchers call for policies that explicitly strengthen administrators’ practical capability so that AI can be harnessed for equitable, human-centered education rather than deployed haphazardly. As AI continues its rapid advance into schools, the Guangxi survey serves as a timely reminder that the success of educational technology ultimately depends less on the sophistication of the tools than on the readiness of the people who lead the institutions using them. Closing the implementation gap between positive attitudes and practical capability may prove to be one of the defining leadership challenges of the coming decade in education.

Subject of Research: Digital leadership preparedness of Chinese educational administrators for the AI era

Article Title: New study reveals an "implementation gap" in Chinese educational administrators' digital leadership for the AI era

Article References: New study reveals an "implementation gap" in Chinese educational administrators' digital leadership for the AI era. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: educational digital leadership, artificial intelligence in education, school administrators, implementation gap, ACC model, latent profile analysis, Guangxi, professional development, ECNU Review of Education, K-12 education, AI ethics, digital transformation