Theoretical Background and Research Questions

Digital transformation in education has been described as a fundamental shift driven by digital technology, requiring schools to rethink and reform their structures and practices (Lin, 2024). This transformation presents significant challenges, as it involves complex changes across multiple levels within schools, requiring technological, pedagogical and organizational transformation (Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2018; Pettersson, 2021). To navigate these challenges, schools must function as learning organizations, fostering environments where knowledge acquisition, sharing, and application are integral to their development (Kruse, 2003; Leithwood & Louis, 2021; Seashore Louis & Lee, 2016). This process necessitates the collective engagement of teachers in organizational learning, which can be identified through habitual knowledge-seeking behaviors, collaboration in evaluating and implementing new ideas, and integrating external innovations into the school context (Schechter & Qadach, 2012; Seashore Louis & Lee, 2016).

Change agents within schools, such as leaders and teachers, play a crucial role in driving innovation by acting as connectors between specialized knowledge and the broader educational community (Brown, 2023; Fullan, 1993; Rogers, 2003; Ryu et al., 2022). The promoter model provides a structured framework to analyze these roles, emphasizing that innovation does not occur spontaneously but is actively propelled by key individuals (Gerick et al., 2024; Prasse, 2012; Wagner & Gerholz, 2022). These promoters take on essential roles in advancing new practices, and their collaboration enhances the success of transformation processes (Witte, 1973).

The promoter model identifies four key roles (Gerick et al., 2024; Prasse, 2012; Wagner & Gerholz, 2022):

1. Authority Promoters - Allocate resources, implement strategic goals, and support professional development.
2. Expert Promoters - Provide technical and pedagogical expertise, guiding peers in digital tool integration.
3. Process Promoters - Facilitate and coordinate digital school development through internal networking.
4. Relationship Promoters - Foster collaborations beyond school boundaries.

Although research acknowledges these roles in school improvement, their specific impact on organizational learning remains underexplored. Organizational learning refers to a school's collective ability—through teachers and leaders—to acquire, analyze, adapt, and integrate new ideas from internal and external sources to drive continuous improvement and enhance student outcomes (Seashore Louis & Lee, 2016). While teachers are recognized as key drivers of school innovation, studies rarely detail how they initiate and sustain change in practice. A systematic review highlights a lack of practical guidance on how teachers effectively implement change, exposing a gap in actionable strategies (Brown et al., 2021). Furthermore, emerging research suggests that trust and informal networks significantly shape teacher-driven innovation, making it necessary to investigate how change agents operate within these networks (Brown et al., 2021).

To capture these relational aspects, this study employs social network analysis (SNA) to map interaction patterns, knowledge-sharing practices, and collaboration in digital transformation initiatives (Penuel et al., 2009). By identifying key promoters within school networks, this study examines their role in enhancing organizational learning and navigating formal structures to disseminate innovations.

Research Questions

1. How do promoters facilitate organizational learning in digital school transformation?
2. How do promoters operate within formal structures and informal networks to support digital school transformation?

Sample and Instruments This study is part of the “Teacher Cooperation in the Context of Digitalization-Related School Development” project, funded by the German Ministry of Education. The current sample includes 16 secondary schools in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), comprising five comprehensive schools (Gesamtschulen) and 13 grammar schools (Gymnasien). 921 teachers completed a questionnaire (the average response rate was 70%, ranging from 41% to 93%). To identify key promoters of digital transformation, a social network analysis (SNA) was conducted. Teachers nominated up to ten colleagues contributing to digitalization efforts through technical guidance, pedagogical support, knowledge dissemination, or strategic coordination. The questionnaire was based on a validated SNA instrument (W. Lin & Lee, 2018), and data was analyzed using Gephi. Anonymity was ensured. Additionally, we assessed organizational learning capacity using an 11-item scale (Lin & Lee, 2018; Seashore Louis & Lee, 2016) with a Cronbach’s α = .81. An example item is: "I regularly share insights about digital tools with my colleagues," rated on a 4-point Likert scale. Qualitative Follow-Up A mixed-method approach was used to link network structures with qualitative insights (Crossley & Edwards, 2016; Penuel et al., 2009). Each school staff is represented as a directed network of teachers (nodes) and digitalization-related support requests (edges) (Fuhse, 2018). 1. In-Degree Centrality - Indicates the number of times a teacher is nominated, reflecting visibility or perceived influence. 2. Betweenness Centrality - Measures the extent to which a teacher serves as a bridge in the network, controlling information flow. To complement the SNA results, 48 online group interviews were conducted with three teacher groups per school (consisting of three teachers per group): 1. Promoters – Teachers engaged in digital initiatives (Promoters were selected based on central network position where scheduling allowed). 2. School Leadership – Principals and deputy principals. 3. General Teaching Staff – Teachers not formally involved in digital coordination. Interviews were analyzed using qualitative structural content analysis (Herz et al., 2014) guided by promoter theory and organizational learning frameworks (Gerick et al., 2024; Prasse, 2012; Seashore Louis & Lee, 2016).

Initial findings show that promoters are present in all schools, though their roles and distribution vary. Process promoters are the most common, followed by Expert and Authority promoters. Teachers with high centrality in networks often assume all promoter roles, emphasizing their influence and adaptability. Key figures in digital transformation include administrators (technical support), digitalization coordinators (pedagogical support), computer science teachers, and academic coordinators, while principals and teachers without digital responsibilities tend to be less central. While some schools exhibit centralized network structures and others decentralized ones, quantitative data show no clear differences in organizational learning capacity. However, qualitative data suggest that promoters significantly enhance school-wide learning through informal mentoring, targeted knowledge dissemination, and coordination of digital school development. Preliminary findings highlight the importance of both informal collaboration and structured formal processes, but their interaction and combined impact on digital transformation require further analysis. This study underscores the complex interplay between formal structures and informal networks in digital school transformation. Ongoing qualitative analyses will examine how promoters navigate and connect these structures to drive organizational learning. The findings will inform practical recommendations for optimizing promoter roles and strengthening organizational learning in digital school development. This mixed-methods approach provides a comprehensive perspective on promoters' influence in digital transformation and school improvement.

Brown, C. (2023). Exploring the current context for professional learning networks, the conditions for their success, and research needs. Emerald Open Research, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/EOR-03-2023-0001 Brown, C., White, R., & Kelly, A. (2021). Teachers as educational change agents: What do we know? Findings from a systematic review. Emerald Open Research, 3, 26. https://doi.org/10.35241/emeraldopenres.14385.1 Crossley, N., & Edwards, G. (2016). Cases, mechanisms, and the real: Mixed-method social network analysis. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 217–285. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3920 Fuhse, J. A. (2018). Soziale Netzwerke: Konzepte und Forschungsmethoden. UTB. Gerick, J., Kieseler, J., Herrmann, D., & Eickelmann, B. (2024). Schulleitungen als Promotoren. MedienPädagogik, 175–194. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/00/2024.04.17.X Ilomäki, L., & Lakkala, M. (2018). Digital technology and practices for school improvement. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0094-8 Kruse, S. D. (2003). Remembering as organizational memory. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(4), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230310481612 Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. S. (2021). Organizational learning in schools. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003077459 Lin, S. (2024). Research on the path of the digital transformation of education. Frontiers in Business, Economics and Management, 15(1), 198–204. https://doi.org/10.54097/2bwt4s51 Lin, W., & Lee, M. (2018). Linking network learning capacity (NLC) to professional community and organizational learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(6), 620–642. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2017-0150 Penuel, W., Riel, M., Krause, A., & Frank, K. (2009). Teachers’ professional interactions as social capital. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100102 Pettersson, F. (2021). Understanding digitalization and educational change in school. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10239-8 Prasse, D. (2012). Bedingungen innovativen Handelns in Schulen: Funktion und Interaktion von Innovationsbereitschaft, Innovationsklima und Akteursnetzwerken. Waxmann. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press. Ryu, J., Walls, J., & Seashore Louis, K. (2022). Caring school leadership and organizational learning. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 7(3), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-07-2021-0039 Schechter, C., & Qadach, M. (2012). Toward an organizational model of change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 116–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11419653 Seashore Louis, K., & Lee, M. (2016). Teachers’ capacity for organizational learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(4), 534–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2016.1189437 Wagner, A., & Gerholz, K.‑H. (2022). Promotionsaktivitäten bei der Implementation digitaler Medien. MedienPädagogik, 49, 22–47. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/49/2022.06.21.X Witte, E. (1973). Organisation für Innovationsentscheidungen: Das Promotoren-Modell. Schwartz.