Transformasi Budaya Komunikasi Sekolah pada Ekosistem Pembelajaran Digital: Integrasi Communication Accommodation Theory dan Perspektif Digital leadership
Abstract
Digital transformation is reshaping how schools organize communication, leadership, and stakeholder interaction; however, the availability of digital platforms does not automatically produce an adaptive communication culture. This study examines the transformation of school communication culture in Jakarta by integrating Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) with a digital leadership perspective. A qualitative multiple-case study was conducted in six senior secondary schools, comprising three public and three private schools, involving 32 purposively selected informants: six principals, twelve senior teachers, six ICT coordinators/vice principals for curriculum, and eight parent representatives. Data were collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews, partial participant observation, and document analysis, and were analyzed thematically through within-case and cross-case comparisons supported by NVivo 12. The findings identify three transformation patterns: adaptive-integrative, selective-instrumental, and constrained. Schools with stronger digital leadership consistently displayed more convergent communication practices, whereas weaker leadership profiles were associated with greater divergence; approximation was prominent among actors who adopted digital communication selectively. The findings further show that communication accommodation functions as a mechanism linking leadership practices with the quality of the digital communication ecosystem. The study proposes a three-layer integrative framework connecting digital leadership, accommodation strategies, and communication-ecosystem outcomes. Practically, the findings imply that school leadership development should move beyond technical digital competence toward communication vision, modeling, ecosystem facilitation, stakeholder-sensitive accommodation, and sustained capacity building.
References
1
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
2
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022
3
Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159–1197. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12639
4
Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001
5
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), Article 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
6
Kraus, S., Durst, S., Ferreira, J. J., Veiga, P., Kailer, N., & Weinmann, A. (2022). Digital transformation in business and management research: An overview of the current status quo. International Journal of Information Management, 63, Article 102466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102466
7
Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019). The role of leadership in a digitalized world: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1938. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01938
8
Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003
9
Van Wart, M., Roman, A., Wang, X., & Liu, C. (2019). Operationalizing the definition of e-leadership: Identifying the elements of e-leadership. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(1), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852316681446
10
Blau, I., & Presser, O. (2013). E-leadership of school principals: Increasing school effectiveness by a school data management system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 1000–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12088
11
Wu, B., Yu, X., & Hu, Y. (2019). How does principal e-leadership affect ICT transformation across different school stages in K-12 education: Perspectives from teachers in Shanghai. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1210–1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12766
12
Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2017). Digital competences and long-term ICT integration in school culture: The perspective of elementary school leaders. Education and Information Technologies, 22(3), 769–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9456-7
13
Håkansson Lindqvist, M., & Pettersson, F. (2019). Digitalization and school leadership: On the complexity of leading for digitalization in school. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 36(3), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-11-2018-0126
14
Pettersson, F. (2021). Understanding digitalization and educational change in school by means of activity theory and the levels of learning concept. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10239-8
15
Ruloff, M., & Petko, D. (2025). School principals' educational goals and leadership styles for digital transformation: Results from case studies in upper secondary schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 28(2), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.2014979
16
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID-19—school leadership in disruptive times. School Leadership & Management, 40(4), 243–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479
17
McCarthy, A. M., Maor, D., McConney, A., & Cavanaugh, C. (2023). Digital transformation in education: Critical components for leaders of system change. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1), Article 100479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100479
18
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers' adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
19
Pettersson, F. (2018). On the issues of digital competence in educational contexts—A review of literature. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 1005–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9649-3
20
Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4
21
Instefjord, E. J., & Munthe, E. (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration of professional digital competence in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.016
22
Macià Bordalba, M., & Garreta Bochaca, J. (2019). Digital media for family-school communication? Parents' and teachers' beliefs. Computers & Education, 132, 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.006
23
Blau, I., & Hameiri, M. (2017). Ubiquitous mobile educational data management by teachers, students and parents: Does technology change school-family communication and parental involvement? Education and Information Technologies, 22(3), 1231–1247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9487-8
24
Hornby, G., & Blackwell, I. (2018). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An update. Educational Review, 70(1), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1388612
25
Giles, H., Edwards, A. L., & Walther, J. B. (2023). Communication accommodation theory: Past accomplishments, current trends, and future prospects. Language Sciences, 99, Article 101571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2023.101571
26
Riordan, M. A., Markman, K. M., & Stewart, C. O. (2013). Communication accommodation in instant messaging: An examination of temporal convergence. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(1), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12462695
27
Gasiorek, J., & Dragojevic, M. (2017). The effects of accumulated underaccommodation on perceptions of underaccommodative communication and speakers. Human Communication Research, 43(2), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12105
28
Gasiorek, J., Weatherall, A., & Watson, B. (2021). Interactional adjustment: Three approaches in language and social psychology. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20965652
29
Nixon, B., & Guajardo, N. R. (2023). The digital chameleon: Factors affecting perceptions of convergence in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42(3), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X221146143
30
Fu, J. S., & Barbour, J. B. (2024). Contextualizing communication for digital innovation and the future of work. Journal of Communication, 74(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad031
31
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888
32
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
33
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 740–762. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.55
34
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
35
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344
36
Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLOS ONE, 15(5), Article e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076
37
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
38
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
39
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhamad Khadafi Firman, Achmad Jamil
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Article Information
Published
2026-09-05
