Uncovering Promises and Challenges of Online-Hybrid School Leadership Preparation and Development Programs: A Narrative Synthesis Through the Lens of Activity Theory

Abstract

As the educational landscape shifts toward digital modalities, School Leadership Preparation and Development Programs (SLPDPs) have adopted online and hybrid models to enhance flexibility and accessibility for diverse learners. This systematic review examines the promises and challenges of online and hybrid SLPDPs through the critical lens of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). Utilizing a narrative synthesis approach informed by CHAT, we highlight congruencies that boost learner engagement and retention, alongside structural tensions that threaten instructional quality. Our findings underscore the urgent need for comprehensive faculty development and robust quality assurance measures to uphold high standards in online and hybrid formats.

Introduction

Over the past two decades, online and hybrid alternatives to traditional education programs have steadily expanded. Reflecting this shift, school leadership preparation and development programs (SLPDPs) have progressively adopted cutting-edge technologies through adaptations in their instructional delivery models (Dexter et al., 2020; Gümüş et al., 2025; Hallinger et al., 2025). Consequently, SLPDPs have been able to create more interactive professional learning processes (Hambright & Franco, 2008) and to extend these practices beyond national contexts (Brooks, 2010).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many on-campus SLPDPs adapted their curricula for fully online delivery (Elfarargy et al., 2022). Indeed, even before this compulsory transition, Robey and Bauer (2013) documented a notable transformation in SLPDPs, with the percentage offering online courses rising from 25% to 75% between 2003 and 2010. Likewise, Anderson et al. (2018) later revealed that 84% of SLPDPs provided at least some hybrid courses. This swift adoption of online and hybrid formats has prompted educational authorities to rethink SLPDPs (Awais, 2023; Guthrie & Hu, 2022; Jones & Kennedy, 2022).

However, the rapid integration of technology within SLPDPs calls into question its effectiveness for leadership development when not underpinned by sound pedagogy (Byrne-Jiménez et al., 2017). Although online delivery enables instructors to connect seamlessly with learners on an individual level, it remains uncertain at the program level whether SLPDPs have truly become the “teaching hospital” depicted by Levine (2005, p. 62), where “instruction, relying principally on active modes of pedagogy,” facilitates practical, real-world teaching and learning between university and school. Echoing the longstanding and polarized debate between Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994), an informed critical perspective holds that while media and technology function as essential delivery vehicles, they do not inherently enhance learning unless coupled with pedagogies embedded within effective instructional design. Advancing this position, Kozma (2001) reframes his counterargument to Clark by emphasizing that “learning is not the receptive response to instruction’s ‘delivery.’ Rather, learning is an active, constructive, cognitive, and social process by which the learner strategically manages available cognitive, physical and social resources …” (p. 181). The deliberate use of the term strategically is particularly important, as it highlights a nuanced distinction between cognitive, physical, and social processes that learners engage in during their professional learning.

The emphasis on strategic agency aligns with Clark’s (2001) position, where he observes that “media or attributes of media have been instrumental in fostering learning gains: We need to ask whether there are other media or another set of media attributes that would yield similar learning gains [emphasis in original]” (p. 181). The critical challenge, therefore, within the context of hybrid and online SLPDPs, lies in identifying who determines this strategy. Is it the learners themselves, or do the technologies impose constraints or affordances that shape these decisions? This distinction becomes even more salient as school leadership programs increasingly depend on digital platforms for delivery and engagement. As Feenberg (2001) argues, digitalized educational technologies are not neutral conduits; rather, they are socially constructed artifacts situated within specific educational and sociocultural contexts. Their design and implementation are deeply influenced by prevailing human values, power relations, and pedagogical aims, which together determine their capacity to bring about meaningful transformations in learning experiences.

This perspective emphasizes that the educational impact of technology depends on intentional pedagogical choices about how it is integrated and used, rather than on the technology itself. Despite the documented sharp rise of online and hybrid instructional models in SLPDPs, a crucial question remains: How seamlessly has this rapid transformation occurred, and have potential challenges associated with these formats been overlooked? Addressing this question is essential, as the ongoing technological shift signifies more than a first-order change, aligning SLPDPs with the contemporary technology-driven landscape. Rather, it represents a second-order change that empowers increasingly self-directed learners to bridge “the gap between the formal learning process and the networked world we live in” (Glassner & Back, 2020, p. 6).

To explore the complexities of technology integration within SLPDPs, this systematic review aims to critically examine the alignment patterns and tensions present in online and hybrid formats. Using Y. Engeström’s (1987) Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) approach as a framework, we analyze the transformative systemic changes in SLPDPs. This approach allows us to interpret the impacts of technological advancements on various system actors and explore how interactions between traditional and online activity systems redefine instructional roles, communication norms, and learning practices. We address the following research questions (RQs):

• RQ-1: What congruencies are evidenced across empirical research on online and hybrid SLPDPs?

• RQ-2: What contradictions are evidenced across empirical research on online and hybrid SLPDPs?

Literature Review

Increasing Accessibility: Promise or Challenge

In recent years, local education authorities and educational leadership departments have increasingly collaborated to adopt online School Leadership Preparation Programs (SLPDPs), including hybrid models, as a strategic initiative to reduce facility costs, boost student enrollment, and modernize educational delivery (Hayes & Irby, 2020). This trend plays a critical role in addressing principal shortages in rural, urban, and hard-to-staff areas, thereby broadening access to leadership preparation across diverse geographic regions (Perrone et al., 2020). This shift is evident in graduate-level course enrollment, with online SLPDPs becoming more prevalent (Moloney & Oakley, 2010).

While online SLPDPs enhance access to leadership training, they also introduce challenges related to instructional quality and faculty preparedness. Orr (2011) argues that the quality and accessibility of SLPDPs influence the outcomes for program participants in their school contexts. Despite the expanded access, concerns about the quality of instruction and student learning outcomes persist (Horvitz et al., 2015). These issues highlight the need for comprehensive quality assurance measures to ensure that online SLPDPs achieve effectiveness comparable to traditional, in-person programs (Bogotch, 2011).

Moreover, this shift toward online and hybrid delivery raises critical questions about the alignment of these programs with established professional standards, such as the National Educational Leadership Preparation Standards (NELP; NPBEA, 2018) and the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL; NPBEA, 2015) in the United States, as well as internationally recognized frameworks like the Australian Professional Standard for Principals (APSP; AITSL, 2014) or the Hong Kong Professional Standards for Principals (PSP; COTAP, 2019). These standards emphasize performance-oriented competencies, such as instructional leadership, ethical decision-making, community and stakeholder engagement, culturally responsive practices, and innovation, which require complex, interactive, and contextually grounded learning experiences.

The key challenge remains whether and how these rigorous leadership standards can be effectively achieved through online modalities, particularly asynchronous formats, which may limit real-time interaction and situated learning opportunities (Boston et al., 2010; Hartman & Morris, 2019; Sherman & Beaty, 2007). This underscores that shifting delivery models necessitate concurrent, substantive changes in instructional strategies that go beyond generic pedagogy recommendations. Instead, leadership preparation programs must strategically design learning activities that authentically engage candidate educational leaders in leadership practices aligned with these multifaceted and context-sensitive standards (Gurr, 2023). Therefore, the present research underscores the structural tension between increasing accessibility and maintaining quality as a global challenge in SLPDPs. Addressing this issue requires focused efforts on faculty development and robust quality control mechanisms to ensure that online SLPDPs achieve educational outcomes on par with traditional programs.

Instructors’ Professional Development Needs

The success of online SLPDPs hinges on robust investment in comprehensive faculty development (Mitchell & Geva-May, 2009). Caruthers and Friend (2014) emphasize that instructors need adequate time and resources to develop new online programs and master new technologies. Improving instructor efficacy in online teaching is critical for engaging students and ensuring program success (Horvitz et al., 2015).

Since Levine’s (2005) harsh critique of the “irrelevant curriculum,” it has become clear that SLPDP curricula should integrate the theory and practice of administration, extending “from pedagogy and locations for instruction to instructors and program content” (p. 58). Leadership preparation must transcend managerial efficiency to encompass intellectual, moral, and craft practices, emphasizing hands-on experiences and clinical inquiry into practical problems (Cambron-McCabe et al., 1991).

Accordingly, Hackmann et al. (2009) point out the delicate balance among increasing accessibility, evolving professional standards in school leadership, and relevant curricular shifts. They argue for a better evaluation of instructors’ professional development needs, noting that “as programs continue to shift emphasis, it is important to know what options exist for current faculty development in emerging programmatic emphases and pedagogies” (p. 262). Despite these recommendations, faculty members often express concerns about their ability to teach effectively online due to insufficient training and experience (Mitchell & Geva-May, 2009). This deficiency poses a considerable challenge, particularly in teaching instructional leadership. Many instructors struggle to create engaging learning environments and facilitate critical discussions (Hayes & Irby, 2020). Consequently, most instructors find online classes challenging and perceive themselves as ineffective.

Conflicting Contextual Demands

Darling-Hammond (2012) suggests that successful programs typically foster strong partnerships with local school districts, utilize cohort models, emphasize adult learning principles, and focus on instructional leadership and student learning. Local educational authorities can leverage SLPDPs as strategic tools, particularly to address principal shortages in underserved areas (Perrone et al., 2020). Additionally, aligning with global standards in effective school leadership may necessitate changes in curriculum design and delivery (Boyer, 2003).

Another critical dimension is the problem-based nature of SLPDPs and the need to critically engage with their underlying pedagogies and their implications for fostering reflective practice within school contexts (Byrne-Jiménez et al., 2017). Traditional paper-based “read, discuss, and apply” approaches have long been criticized for failing to promote contextual and experiential learning adequately (Hallinger et al., 2025; Dexter et al., 2020). Embracing these multilayered demands reveals a structural tension between the diverse needs of educational stakeholders. Balancing these varied and often competing needs requires a strategic approach to program design and continuous feedback from all stakeholders. Failure to address these tensions undermines the effectiveness and credibility of hybrid and online SLPDPs, leading “to experience role conflict between physical reality expectations and virtual expectations” (Boyer, 2003, p. 33).

Theoretical Framework

An appropriate theoretical framework is crucial for interpreting the results of a robust review (Campbell et al., 2019). With this in mind, a well-versed reader can quickly notice that most of the aforementioned conceptualizations—such as (self-)reflection on technological mediums, modified teaching and learning goals, redefined instructional roles and responsibilities, enlarging communities, and evolving communication norms—directly invoke the fine-grained components of CHAT as proposed by Y. Engeström (1987). Prior studies (Barab et al., 2002; Gedera, 2016; Greenhow & Belbas, 2007) affirm that CHAT provides a robust lens for examining dynamic interactions and contradictions in higher education. The central assumption underpinning CHAT is that actions are never the result of decisions made in isolation; instead, they are mediated by cultural and material artifacts. The tools we use (e.g., physical teaching-learning materials vs. learning management systems), the rules we follow (e.g., online vs. face-to-face communication mandates), and the communities (e.g., virtual vs. traditional classes) to which we belong shape both our teaching and learning choices and the resulting outcomes as activities. In the context of SLPDPs, CHAT helps explain how teachers and learners navigate challenges, particularly in online or hybrid programs, by considering both individual efforts and the broader social system. Thus, this review is guided by CHAT, facilitating a deeper understanding of effective and sustainable online and hybrid SLPDPs.

At the core of CHAT is the concept of activity, which refers to a series of actions driven by collective needs or motives. Individuals may satisfy these needs through automated actions within a sociocultural context, such as language (Leont’ev, 1981). Alternatively, complex motives may lead individuals to perform chains of actions that transform ideas into tangible outcomes (Roth & Lee, 2007). Actions are therefore the main components of an activity system, allowing inductive reasoning to identify the system’s overall dynamics.

Each activity system comprises six components: subject, object, mediating artifacts, rules, community, and division of labor (Y. Engeström, 1999). The subject refers to individuals or groups engaged in the activity, while the object denotes the materialized goals or motives transformed into outcomes. The subjects’ activities are mediated by physical or mental artifacts, such as tools, signs, culture, and past experiences. These mediating artifacts shape the activity, influencing task performance and interactions. Governed by societal rules and norms, these artifacts establish behaviors that facilitate coordination while creating constraints. The division of labor reflects the social and cultural organization of the community, assigning specific roles and responsibilities to community members, crucial for their complex activities.

To fully leverage CHAT as a conceptual and analytical framework, it is necessary to focus on the dynamic tensions that shape the integration of technology into educational practice (Anthony, 2011). CHAT illuminates the interplay between stability and change—between what is lost and what is gained—as SLPDPs shift from in-person to online or hybrid formats. The gist of change is captured through a dialectical analysis of activity systems, where continuities and contradictions emerge (Lektorsky, 2009). These forces are particularly instructive in unpacking how hybrid and online SLPDPs evolve amidst the competing demands of diverse actors, the integration of emergent technological tools as mediating artifacts, and the continual renegotiation of actual pedagogical practices (Byrne-Jiménez et al., 2017). This perspective reveals that transitions to online environments are not merely a matter of “delivering” instruction through a new medium but involve reconfiguring the very relationships, rules, and tools that sustain practice (Kozma, 1994). In this sense, CHAT helps uncover the affordances that emerge within evolving socio-technical systems, as well as the accompanying constraints that both shape and are shaped by the contextual and pedagogical dynamics within activity systems.

Contradictions and Congruencies

To understand the dynamic nature of activity systems, it is essential to recognize “contradictions,” which Y. Engeström (1987) categorizes into four types: primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary. Primary contradictions occur within each component, such as conflicts within the community. Secondary contradictions arise between different components of the same system, like between the subject and community or between tools and rules. Tertiary contradictions emerge when there is a mismatch between the current activity’s object and a more advanced cultural form. Finally, quaternary contradictions involve tensions between the central activity and related external systems. These contradictions drive the evolution and transformation of activity systems, highlighting areas that require adaptation.

Conversely, “congruencies” refer to elements within an activity system that align and support one another, fostering stability rather than change (D. K. Allen et al., 2013). These congruencies provide strength to the activity system, maintaining existing practices and relationships (Kamanga & Alexander, 2021). They counterbalance contradictions, which drive transformation (Karanasios & Allen, 2014). Congruencies occur when tools, rules, and community norms harmonize with the subjects’ objectives and practices, ensuring effective operation without necessitating major alterations. While contradictions lead to morphogenesis (change), congruencies contribute to morphostasis (stability) across activity system components (D. K. Allen et al., 2013).

Building on the concepts of secondary and tertiary contradictions in the proposed CHAT framework, the present study provides a valuable lens to examine persistent tensions in online and hybrid SLPDPs related to technology-mediated pedagogies, the quality of instructional practices, and adherence to professional standards. Secondary contradictions arise within the activity system when tensions emerge between components, for example, when evolving professional standards (rules) demand innovative instructional practices (mediating artifacts) that instructors and learners (subjects) are not yet fully prepared to enact effectively in online environments. Tertiary contradictions, on the other hand, occur when new models of leadership preparation (e.g., online delivery modes aligned with performance-oriented standards such as NELP and PSEL) conflict with established traditional practices and expectations, thus challenging existing norms and roles within the community. These contradictions highlight the ongoing struggle to reconcile the imperative of broadening accessibility with the need for rigorous, quality-driven pedagogy that authentically meets leadership standards. Consequently, addressing these contradictions requires not only technological adaptations but also substantive pedagogical redesign and faculty development to ensure that online SLPDPs do more than replicate traditional instruction; they must innovate in ways that realize the promise of high-quality, standards-aligned leadership preparation in virtual and hybrid contexts.

CHAT Reflections on Online SLPDPs

In our study, primary contradictions arise within individual components of the activity system, such as conflicts among faculty regarding preparedness and confidence in online teaching. Secondary contradictions emerge between elements of the same system, such as the tension between increased accessibility of online SLPDPs and concerns over instructional quality. Tertiary contradictions occur when there is a mismatch between current practices and advanced educational models, such as the clash between traditional teaching methods and innovative online pedagogies. Quaternary contradictions involve tensions between SLPDPs and external systems, including conflicts between the goals of online SLPDPs and the expectations of educational authorities or international standards. These contradictions are crucial for driving the evolution of online SLPDPs, ensuring they adapt effectively to stakeholder needs. Unlike contradictions, congruencies foster stability within the activity system. For instance, alignment between faculty and administrative goals, or the compatibility of online tools with existing practices, enables the system to sustain itself effectively.

Adhering to this framework, we view “online” education as a continuum that dynamically transitions from traditional settings to hybrid and fully online environments rather than opposing traditional education (E. Allen & Seaman, 2013). Similarly, “online” tools encompass various learning management systems, synchronous and asynchronous communication platforms (e.g., Zoom, discussion boards), and diverse software. The objective of this activity system is to train effective school leaders equipped with essential cognitive, emotional, and practical management skills per educational standards. The communities within the SLPDPs include instructors, learners, teaching assistants, instructional designers, and technology facilitators. The existing course syllabus, academic success criteria, and course requirements form the basic rules and norms of the activity system. Inspired by Y. Engeström’s (2001) third-generation CHAT framework, Figure 1 below illustrates the key components of an online education activity system.

Figure 1.

Online-hybrid SLPDP activity system.

Method

As articulated in the theoretical framework, this study situates online SLPDPs within a dynamic continuum shaped by the intersection of two interrelated activity systems: traditional face-to-face education and fully online education. These two systems are also illustrated in the figure above. By leveraging the interpretative strength of the CHAT framework, we aim to narratively synthesize the existing empirical literature, with particular attention to identifying both contradictions and congruencies within and across these systems.

Accordingly, this study adopts a systematic review methodology to examine the use of online and hybrid instructional methods in SLPDPs, utilizing a narrative synthesis approach to interpret emergent patterns in activity systems. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify relevant empirical studies, guided by the PRISMA statement (Moher et al., 2009). PRISMA provides a structured and standardized framework for conducting and reporting systematic reviews, thereby enhancing methodological quality through clearly defined stages of identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion. As such, this framework guided our comprehensive literature search, selection criteria, and data extraction process.

Search and Selection

Identification

As shown in Figure 2, a comprehensive search was conducted across two major scientific databases, Web of Science and Scopus, resulting in 516 records. The search included terms such as “virtual,” “online,” “hybrid,” “blended,” “simulation,” “digital,” “e-learning,” “computer-based,” “web-based,” “distance learning,” “distance technology,” and “artificial intelligence,” combined with terms related to school leadership training and preparation (exact search queries available in the Supplemental Appendix). The search was limited to English, peer-reviewed articles. This included studies published in English regardless of the authors’ nationality or the official language of the journal in which they appeared. After combining bibliometric data, 118 duplicate entries were removed using Bibliometrix software (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017), leaving 398 unique records for evaluation. During this process, discrepancies in bibliometric data were resolved, that is, instances where the same article appeared in both databases with identical titles, but incomplete or inconsistent metadata were identified and merged by the software as appropriate.

Figure 2.

PRISMA flow chart.

Screening

The researchers then manually screened each remaining record based on title and publication details provided by the Web of Science and Scopus export tools. An additional three duplicate records were identified and removed during this manual process, as they appeared under slightly different titles due to punctuation differences or included missing author information, which caused them to be overlooked by the software. After resolving these inconsistencies and eliminating all overlapping entries, a total of 395 unique records were retained for abstract-level eligibility assessment.

Eligibility

The titles and abstracts of the 395 articles were meticulously evaluated by the authors, with discussions for any uncertainties. In the first stage, articles were assessed against two inclusion criteria: (a) mentioning online delivery of instruction in an educational context, and (b) referencing these methods for training K-12 school leaders. This led to the exclusion of 182 articles unrelated to education and 161 not relevant to K-12 school leadership. In the second stage, the full texts of the remaining 42 articles were assessed based on two exclusion criteria: (a) whether the articles clearly addressed online delivery methods (resulting in 23 exclusions) and (b) whether they provided empirical results (resulting in 12 exclusions).

Inclusion

This thorough examination yielded 17 articles that met the eligibility criteria. Additionally, a reference harvesting strategy identified 7 more articles, resulting in a total of 24 peer-reviewed articles included in the systematic review (see Supplemental Appendix A). These articles provided empirical evidence on the promises and challenges of online and hybrid SLPDPs, offering valuable insights into their effectiveness, accessibility, and quality. The systematic review process ensured a rigorous and transparent approach to synthesizing relevant research, enhancing the reliability and comprehensiveness of the findings. The full review process is outlined in the PRISMA flow diagram presented below.

Narrative Synthesis Approach

To synthesize findings from the selected studies, we utilized a narrative synthesis approach, facilitated by the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) method, as an extension of the PRISMA steps (Campbell et al., 2020). This approach is particularly useful for heterogeneous study designs and outcomes, allowing systematic and transparent synthesis without relying on statistical meta-analysis (Mertkan & Gümüş, 2024; Mays et al., 2005). The SWiM method is vital for addressing challenges in synthesizing evidence when statistical meta-analysis is not feasible. Given the methodological diversity and contrasting findings across the reviewed studies, the narrative synthesis approach through the SWiM method provided us with a structured framework to systematically narrate results, enhancing transparency and rigor.

Accordingly, we followed the nine required steps in the SWiM guidelines to ensure the reliability of our synthesis process (Campbell et al., 2020). In many systematic reviews, the heterogeneity of study designs, interventions, and outcomes precludes the use of traditional meta-analytic techniques. To respond to this, the SWiM method provides a structured approach for systematically narrating the findings, thereby enhancing transparency and rigor in reporting. Below, we detail how we used the nine steps required by the SWiM guideline in the current study to ensure transparency and reliability in our synthesis process.

Grouping Studies for Synthesis

Studies were grouped based on various criteria: type of instructional delivery methods (fully online or hybrid), type of SLPPs (graduate programs, school district projects, charters), participants (aspiring principals, assigned principals, mixed cohorts of teachers and principals, or mixed cohorts of pre-service teachers and principals), geographic locations (by countries), and online program contents (by course names). This grouping aimed to address the diverse contexts and outcomes of SLPPs, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of how different delivery methods impact various aspects of leadership preparation (see Supplemental Appendix B). After the initial review by the first author, the second author identified additional relevant groupings based on emerging themes from the data, noting regularities and contradictions. These additional groupings were agreed upon after joint discussions. These modifications were made to better capture the complexity of the studied phenomena and ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant factors.

The Standardized Metric and Transformation Method Used

When available, the standardized metrics used in this review included measures of instructional quality, program accessibility, and leadership competencies. These metrics were typically reported as mean differences, percentages, or Likert scale ratings. We did not convert these intervention effects into different metrics; instead, we reported them exactly as they were presented in the original studies, with relevant details for making sense of those metrics.

The Synthesis Methods

Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, we employed narrative synthesis methods on purpose. This involved summarizing the findings through thematic analysis, identifying commonalities and differences, and synthesizing the results into coherent themes, regardless of the methodologies of the original studies (Mertkan & Gümüş, 2024). This approach was justified due to the qualitative or mixed method nature of many included studies and the diversity of outcome measures.

Criteria Used to Prioritize Results for Summary and Synthesis

We prioritized studies based on their methodological rigor and relevance to the review questions. Studies that provided detailed descriptions of their interventions and clear outcome measures were given more weight in the synthesis. This prioritization aimed to ensure that the most reliable and relevant evidence informed our conclusions.

Investigation of Heterogeneity in Reported Effects

We examined differences in the narratives using the CHAT framework. Additionally, we categorized the reviewed studies based on key factors such as program type, participant groups, instructional tools, and geographic context. The findings were presented in organized tables and structured figures to clearly show variations in effects. This approach enabled us to explore potential sources of heterogeneity in the data without relying on statistical methods that might not be suitable for the diverse types of data we encountered.

Certainty of Evidence

The authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence by evaluating several factors, including methodological quality, consistency of findings, directness of evidence, and potential biases. Only after reaching consensus on the validity of each major finding were the results included in the narrative analysis. During this process, we also noted any limitations and areas of uncertainty.

Data Presentation Methods

While synthesizing the narratives, we used a combination of tables, thematically colorized Excel rows, and narrative summaries to present the data. Tables displayed key characteristics and findings of the included studies, organized by study design and outcome measures. Thematic colorizations illustrated the relationships between different themes and the overall narrative, facilitating a clear understanding of the synthesized results.

Reporting Results

For each comparison and outcome, we provided a detailed narrative description of the synthesized findings, including the number of studies and participants, the direction and magnitude of effects, and the certainty of evidence. We explicitly stated which studies contributed to each synthesis and discussed the implications of the findings in the context of the review questions.

Limitations of the Synthesis

We reported several limitations in our synthesis methods, including the reliance on narrative synthesis due to the heterogeneity of the data, potential biases in the included studies, and the challenges of assessing the certainty of qualitative evidence. These limitations were discussed in relation to how they might affect the conclusions drawn and the generalizability of the findings.

By adhering to these steps, we aimed to provide a comprehensive and nuanced synthesis of the evidence on online and hybrid SLPPs, highlighting key findings while acknowledging the complexity and diversity of the data. This allowed us to address the varied contexts and outcomes effectively, ensuring that our review captures a thorough and accurate picture of the current state of research in this field. Additionally, by transparently documenting our synthesis process and decisions, we contribute to the reproducibility and credibility of our findings, enabling other researchers to build upon and verify our results.

Results

Descriptive of the Reviewed Articles and Relevant SLPDPs

As shown in Figure 3, there was a noticeable increase in the number of studies on online and hybrid SLPDPs between 2010 and 2014 (n = 9, 38%). In the subsequent 5-year periods, fewer studies were published: between 2015 and 2019 (n = 6, 25%) and between 2020 and 2024 (n = 4, 16%). Among the 24 studies reviewed, qualitative research methods were predominantly employed (n = 15, 63%), whereas the use of quantitative methods remained limited (n = 4, 16%). Notably, there was a growing trend in the adoption of mixed-methods approaches, particularly in the past decade (n = 5, 21%). This distribution highlights a strong emphasis on qualitative research and a recent, albeit modest, shift toward mixed methodologies in the field.

Figure 3.

Distribution of research by year period and method.

Most programs were based in the U.S. (n = 18, 75%) and predominantly offered by universities (n = 15, 63%). Four programs involved university-district collaborations (n = 4, 17%), while 21% were run directly by school districts or ministries (n = 5). Only one program, based in Norway, was provided by a private company, indicating a trend toward university-based programs, particularly in the U.S.

Regarding sampling approach, convenience sampling was used in three studies (13%), indicating that researchers accessed data from SLPDPs based on ease of access (Elfarargy et al., 2022; Lewis & Jones, 2019; Saeed & Moreira, 2010). Purposive criterion sampling was employed in four studies (17%; Garcia et al., 2014; Hayes & Irby, 2020; Karabatak & Turhan, 2017a, 2017b). Random sampling was reported in one study (Okpala et al., 2010). In terms of research methodology, exploratory case study designs were used in five studies (21%; Boyer, 2003; Issa Lahera et al., 2014; Moe & Rye, 2011; Phillips et al., 2023; Saeed & Moreira, 2010), while survey designs were employed in seven studies (29%; Karabatak & Turhan, 2017a, 2017b; Markson, 2018; Oliver et al., 2018; Ritter et al., 2010; Sherman et al., 2010). A single-group time-series design was used in one study (Bolliger, 2003). Additionally, in six studies (25%), authors of the study held participant roles within the investigated SLPDPs as technology coordinator (Boyer, 2003), course designer (Danzig et al., 2005), or instructor (Oliver et al., 2018; Saeed & Moreira, 2010; Strom & Porfilio, 2019; Torres & Gilzene, 2019); so their positionality in these roles, as well as any self-reported experiences, were properly disclosed in the findings.

Participant groups in the reviewed studies exhibited considerable variation; certain programs enrolled exclusively aspiring leaders (n = 5, 21%), whereas others targeted practicing principals (n = 4, 17%). Mixed cohorts included combinations of in-service teachers and practicing principals (n = 5, 21%), in-service teachers and aspiring leaders (n = 2, 8%), and pre-service teachers and aspiring leaders (n = 1, 4%). This diversity highlights the broad applicability and varied target audiences of online and hybrid SLPDPs.

Regarding instructional methods, online course delivery was the most common approach (n = 13, 54%), followed by studies comparing multiple methods, including online, face-to-face, and hybrid (n = 7, 29%), and hybrid/blended methods (n = 4, 17%). Communication modes in the majority of programs combined synchronous and asynchronous methods (n = 16, 67%), while fewer relied exclusively on asynchronous communication (n = 6, 25%). Only two programs used static website modules without synchronous or asynchronous communication tools. The reviewed studies covered various content focuses, including the National Professional Qualification for Headship program, instructional leadership, problem-based school leadership, and human resource management, reflecting a wide range of competencies and areas.

Promises of Online Programs

RQ-1: What Congruencies Are Evidenced Across Empirical Research on Online and Hybrid SLPDPs?

The first RQ explores the congruencies evidenced across empirical research on online and hybrid SLPDPs by synthesizing shared program features, pedagogical approaches, and reported outcomes that consistently emerge across studies. In response to this question, the systematic review revealed emerging promises of online and hybrid SLPDPs. Our analysis revealed that personal and contextual needs are well met through the emphasis on flexibility (n = 4, 17%) and accessibility (n = 3, 13%). The flexibility of online education allowed learners to work at their own pace (Bolliger, 2003; Karabatak & Turhan, 2017a), and they also appreciated instructors’ ability to adjust the pace of the class (Oliver et al., 2018). Besides, hybrid programs, offering diverse delivery methods—including online, face-to-face, and blended models—further supported instructors’ flexibility in meeting varied student needs (Hambright & Franco, 2008). Accessibility through easy access to online learning management systems reduced the time required to reach learning content (Nordin et al., 2012) and assignments (Dwikurnaningsih et al., 2022). Due to heightened access to online learning management systems, learners also valued the ability to reread materials and avoid classroom distractions, which were highlighted as key benefits of the online programs (Bolliger, 2003). This adaptability facilitated a more inclusive educational experience, catering to a wide range of learning preferences and schedules in the online programs.

Another notable advantage of the online programs was their strong connectivity between theory and practice. Problem-based learning approaches were frequently mentioned as relevant, necessary, and effective (n = 8, 33%) in addressing real organizational issues, thereby bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application (Bolliger, 2003; Boyer, 2003; Karabatak & Turhan, 2017a; Korach & Agans, 2011; Oliver et al., 2018; Phillips et al., 2023; Sherman et al., 2010; Torres & Gilzene, 2019). Participants appreciated the applied learning strategies that allowed them to engage with real-world problems and develop practical solutions (Korach & Agans, 2011). Additionally, the promotion of active and self-directed learning emerged as a key advantage, with online programs encouraging student-centered instruction and high levels of self-motivation (Garcia et al., 2014; Okpala et al., 2010; Strom & Porfilio, 2019). Using digital tools for authentic assignments and creative engagement through forums, quizzes, and discussion boards was also highly valued, as it promoted metacognitive awareness, deeper thinking, and collaborative knowledge construction (Korach & Agans, 2011; Nordin et al., 2012). A learner interviewed by Saeed and Moreira (2010)—notably, Moreira also served as the instructor in the same program—described how online programs can enhance peer communication beyond the virtual course environment and even national boundaries, including through international phone calls:

We usually discussed everything with each other …. when if any of us has a need and want to have a bigger discussion that person would call. Sometimes we talk for even an hour by phone. Sometimes even if one of us is abroad they would make international calls and discussed and want to have a bigger discussion that person would call. (p. 140).

The empirical knowledge base derived from the reviewed articles supports cognitive and affective gains for online programs. More precisely, increased self-efficacy and knowledge gains are evident as prominent outcomes (n = 5, 21%), with participants reporting higher knowledge and confidence in instructional leadership (Boyer, 2003; Lewis & Jones, 2019) and improved knowledge and skills post-program (Dwikurnaningsih et al., 2022). Online program participants surveyed by Karabatak and Turhan (2017b) also showed a significant increase in self-efficacy scores (Mean_pre-test = 3.70, SD = 0.81; Mean_post-test = 4.29, SD = 0.60; t₍₃₂₎ = −4.11, p < .01). Similarly, 89%, that is, 70 out of 79 participants surveyed by Elfarargy et al. (2022), expressed high levels of satisfaction with the online program’s effectiveness. The program participants in Okpala et al. (2010) concluded that they are more engaged in self-directed learning and developed high levels of self-motivation due to online education.

In addition to these statistically significant improvements, several quantitative (n = 3, 13%) studies reported non-significant differences between online and face-to-face program participants, further reinforcing the overall equivalence and viability of online leadership preparation. For instance, Markson (2018) found little to no statistically significant differences between online and face-to-face graduates in coursework preparation aligned with the ISLLC standards, indicating that online programs were at least as effective as traditional formats in preparing candidates for leadership responsibilities. Similarly, Karabatak and Turhan (2017b) reported that although participants demonstrated significant gains in several professional dimensions, changes in professional commitment were not statistically significant, suggesting stability rather than decline in participants’ professional orientation. Likewise, Ritter et al. (2010) found no statistically significant differences in learning perceptions among students enrolled in online, hybrid, and traditional programs (F_(2,119) = 1.46, p = .24), indicating comparable perceived learning outcomes across delivery modalities.

Taken together, these non-significant findings suggest that while online and hybrid SLPDPs are broadly comparable to traditional formats in terms of learning and professional preparation, they also point to areas where anticipated advantages may not fully materialize. This equivalence, coupled with the absence of consistent superiority across all professional dimensions, paves the way for closer examination of contextual, pedagogical, and technological factors that may constrain the effectiveness of online programs and contribute to the challenges experienced by participants and SLPDPs.

Embracing Challenges Through Contradictions

RQ-2: What Contradictions Are Evidenced Across Empirical Research on Online and Hybrid SLPDPs?

The second RQ examines the contradictions evidenced across empirical research on online and hybrid SLPDPs by mapping four levels of CHAT-informed contradictions that reveal persistent contradictions within (primary), between (secondary), temporal (tertiary), and across (quaternary) interacting activity systems. Although the reviewed empirical studies highlight encouraging prospects related to RQ-1, our review addressing RQ-2 also uncovers substantial challenges arising from contradictions within the online activity system. Specifically, using the analytical lens of CHAT, we identify four levels of contradictions that offer critical insights into the functioning of online programs as interconnected systems. These contradictions, manifesting within both online and traditional activity systems, reveal underlying structural tensions which, if effectively addressed, have the potential to enhance and transform SLPDPs.

Primary Contradictions

Primary contradictions occur within individual elements of the activity system, often reflecting internal conflicts within a single component. In the online activity system, these contradictions manifest as participants struggle with ICT use, required technological skills, and new divisions of labor. Our review indicates that some studies (n = 4; 17%), instructors and adult learners reported spending more time on technical aspects of online platforms than on meaningful learning reflections (Danzig et al., 2005; Dwikurnaningsih et al., 2022; Karabatak & Turhan, 2017a; Saeed & Moreira, 2010). For instance, Saeed and Moreira (2010), with the second author serving as an instructor in the investigated program, found that adult learners often face difficulties adapting to new technology, prioritizing technical issues over learning. Instructors also encounter challenges due to the volume of email correspondence related to online assignments, complicating their roles. Danzig et al. (2005), who were the course designers of the target program, interviewed an instructor from the same program and noted:

There is a volume of email related to assignments that is significant … With approximately twenty-five students in a class, this represents about five hundred emails … As long as the instructor is the hub for most assignments, the volume of email is a challenge to teaching on the web (p. 35).

Not only do instructors experience the internal tension of an increased workload, but they also report feeling frustrated and constrained, noting that they “miss a lot of teachable moments” when teaching in front of a computer, as a major aspect of instructional leadership relies on personal communication—often rendered invisible behind the digital walls of fully online programs (Hayes & Irby, 2020, p. 138). Likewise, learners report feelings of loneliness and emotional distress, highlighting further internal contradictions. For example, learners surveyed by Moe and Rye (2011) indicated a sense of loneliness in the e-learning environment. Furthermore, several reviewed studies (n = 3, 13%) point out that technical and infrastructure issues, such as poor internet connectivity and inadequate software, exacerbate these challenges (Dwikurnaningsih et al., 2022; Karabatak & Turhan, 2017a; Saeed & Moreira, 2010). These findings particularly address the lack of qualified technology infrastructure in SLPDPs implemented in non-Western contexts, such as Indonesia, the Maldives, and Turkey.

Secondary Contradictions

Secondary contradictions arise from misalignments between different components of the online education activity system. A notable finding from our review indicates that new divisions of labor, such as technology facilitators or process leaders, have emerged alongside traditional roles of instructors and learners (n = 6, 25%). These auxiliary/facilitator actors often face challenges in aligning their responsibilities with those of instructors, creating contradictions within the division of labor. For instance, Torres and Gilzene (2019), acting as main instructors, noted that auxiliary instructors are frequently consulted about technology use and are expected to provide various troubleshooting options in collaboration with technical support staff. Boyer (2003) also self-reported as a technology coordinator, “The difficulty establishing role differentiation between the process leader’s responsibility and the instructor’s responsibility did eventually result in contradictory messages being issued by team members to participants” (p. 34). Similarly, Hayes and Irby (2020) highlighted challenges in engaging learners in critical conversations about instructional leadership, reflecting a secondary contradiction between the medium and the objectives of the online system.

Learners surveyed by Bolliger (2003) also experienced contradictions arising from online tools versus the goals of the activity system. Limitations of real-time discussion and feedback in asynchronous settings exacerbate this tension, as noted by Karabatak and Turhan (2017a). Furthermore, Strom and Porfilio (2019), as instructors in the investigated online SLPDP, discussed contradictions faced by disadvantaged communities, where online instruction often excludes differently-abled students. This highlights inclusivity and accessibility issues, revealing a contradiction between online tools and the diverse needs of these learners.

Tertiary Contradictions

Tertiary contradictions arise from discrepancies between new online education systems and older, traditional models. These contradictions often emerge when new online educational frameworks attempt to replace or coexist with established face-to-face systems. Our review indicates that while online programs provide flexibility and accessibility, they also introduce structural contradictions in instructors’ and learners’ perceptions of hybrid SLPDPs (n = 10, 42%).

The transition from face-to-face to digital learning environments reconfigures mediating artifacts and the division of labor, shifting learners’ self-positionalities both inside and outside the classroom. As highlighted in the instructor narrative reported by Strom and Porfilio (2019), who were also instructors in the same program, this tension exemplifies a tertiary contradiction within the activity system, where the enactment of new pedagogies—characterized by increased learner agency, interaction, and enhanced “presence”—disrupts established teaching practices.

Garcia et al. (2014) found that 95% of learners preferred hybrid learning over purely face-to-face or online formats. Similarly, Sherman et al. (2010) reported that 56% of participants favored hybrid courses. However, online programs often struggle to deliver the essential face-to-face interaction and mentorship critical for effective school leadership training. For instance, Oliver et al. (2018), who served as instructors in the focal online SLPDP, conducted a survey study and reported that learners showed a strong preference for face-to-face delivery modes, followed by hybrid programs, while fully online formats were the least preferred.

These contradictions may be intensified by the complex requirements of interacting activity systems, which necessitate a high level of interpersonal skills and adaptability. Instructors interviewed by Strom and Porfilio (2019)—who themselves were instructors in the same program—reported that transitioning from in-class to online teaching required substantial pedagogical recalibrations to accommodate the unique affordances and limitations of digital environments. This reflects a tertiary contradiction regarding the evolving norms and rules between online and traditional education systems.

A learner narrative shared by Issa Lahera et al. (2014) illustrates this transformation, highlighting changes in schedules and course durations:

In traditional program, students came once or twice a week in the evenings for about three hours over the course of a 16-week semester. With the new design, students had to come to the university only once a week for five hours per class. This cut the program from two years to one year (p. 127).

Such systemic transformations may create inevitable tertiary contradictions between traditional classroom settings (norms and rules) and online communication roles of hybrid, as quoted from Torres and Gilzene’s (2019)—an instructor—own narratives:

One of the first challenges was the layout of the classroom. The room was set up in several rows of tables, which made it difficult to find a central location for the circular microphone. We had the students reorganize the tables into a “U” shape and placed the microphone in front of them. There were other technological difficulties. The online students could not hear the lecture very well (due to the micro- phone’s distance from the lecturer), and the in-class students were being distracted by some of the things happening on the screen. (p. 70).

On one hand, the learners appreciated the complementary interaction with instructors and the ongoing reflection and discussion opportunities provided by hybrid SLPDPs (Garcia et al., 2014). Hybrid programs were noted for providing more equitable learning opportunities and achieving higher retention rates compared to traditional classroom settings (Korach & Agans, 2011). A vast majority of the learners (n = 29, 81%), perceive hybrid programs enjoyable and flexible, yet demanding greater self-responsibility (Sherman et al., 2010).

A critical point emerging is whether learners attribute the perceived flexibility of online SLPDPs to the technical affordances of the medium or to the evolving pedagogical approaches adopted. The findings in this regard are mixed. Some learners emphasize the technical affordances of online SLPDPs, particularly in terms of flexible time management, content selection, and associated cost-effectiveness. For instance, a learner cited in Karabatak and Turhan (2017b) noted that hybrid SLPDPs are “less costly than the conventional education system … Students have opportunity to skip the subjects that they know in advance within the course content and to repeat the subjects they do not understand as many times as they want” (p. 677).

Beyond technical affordances, Korach and Agans (2011) underscored the pedagogical shift in online SLPDPs from didactic to facilitative teaching. This shift fosters a problem-centered and contextualized learning environment, enhancing both accountability and academic rigor while aligning more closely with real-world leadership challenges. One principal candidate learner in their study reflected on their online learning experience as follows:

What is important is to explain my process of analysis, how I moved continuously and cyclically through the different data snapshots, into comparison, into inference, moving from big picture and complicated overlap, to disaggregating data to quiet some noise and draw out correlations, to reconnecting relational issues to understand real-life implications. (p. 229).

This suggests that not only does online instruction reduce the friction of time and space for principal candidates, but it also contributes to creating a more engaging learning environment by reducing time and space-related barriers (Moe & Rye, 2011). The perceived time efficiency appears to enhance both learners’ and instructors’ sense of instructional autonomy and engagement.

The review, however, also shows that the unmet learner-to-learner communication needs may undermine the preferability of hybrid programs to some extent. For instance, Ritter et al. (2010) concluded that the learners in face-to-face and hybrid classes felt more connected to their peers than those in online classes. Therefore, when it comes to choosing one or another, the learners tend to show a preference for face-to-face interaction over fully online settings, expressing a higher sense of classroom community and connectedness in traditional settings (Karabatak & Turhan, 2017a).

Quaternary Contradictions

Quaternary contradictions arise between the online activity system and other interacting systems, particularly when online SLPDPs engage with broader educational, institutional, or cultural contexts. Several studies from our review (n = 4, 17%) highlight challenges faced by online programs in aligning with external factors such as work and family expectations (Garcia et al., 2014; Okpala et al., 2010; Saeed & Moreira, 2010; Sherman et al., 2010). As a result, hybrid learning models are often favored for their ability to balance professional, family, and academic commitments.

For instance, a participant who left a fully online course illustrates the tension between work and online education, citing communication challenges (Saeed & Moreira, 2010):

Because a friend … sent me an SMS to say that the instructor was online so I went online. She couldn‘t even respond to my question when the line was disconnected. Because we are busy with our own teaching it is difficult to be online at the same time as the instructor (p. 140).

This underscores the broader issue of aligning online learning with the practical constraints and scheduling conflicts of both learners and instructors. Whereas, the other half (n = 2, 8%) of the studies issuing external factors highlighted the benefits of online or hybrid formats in supporting learners’ family responsibilities. For instance, Garcia et al. (2014) found that hybrid learning enables students to better manage family commitments alongside academic responsibilities. Similarly, Sherman et al.’s (2010) survey revealed that 21% of learners preferred online SLPDPs because they alleviated family-related obligations.

These findings emphasize the necessity for a balanced approach to leadership preparation that incorporates the strengths of both online and face-to-face environments. Sherman et al. (2010) identified work obligations, travel cost savings, and family responsibilities as key reasons for choosing hybrid courses. By blending online and in-person interactions, hybrid learning environments offer a practical solution that accommodates diverse schedules and responsibilities, reinforcing the importance of designing leadership preparation programs that cater to the needs of modern professionals.

Discussion

Online and hybrid learning models have increasingly been positioned as transformative alternatives in SLPDPs, offering flexibility that meets diverse learner needs. Our review indicates that many participants prefer hybrid formats over fully online or traditional in-person approaches, citing flexibility and engagement as key factors (Garcia et al., 2014; Sherman et al., 2010). While these findings demonstrate logistical and experiential advantages, it is important to note that changes in the timing and location of instruction alone do not necessarily transform the shared object of the program, that is, training effective school leaders. For instance, the extent to which digitalized educational leadership programs foster equity-oriented or socially just teaching practices within their content and pedagogies remains understudied (Mullen & Warnick, 2025; Strom & Porfilio, 2019). Meaningful transformation, therefore, depends on the deliberate and intentional design of pedagogical strategies, which our results only partially capture.

The interpretation of real-world problems and problem-based learning in online and hybrid SLPDPs illustrates the multifaceted interplay between theory and practice, as well as the place of different subject positionalities (learners and instructors) within the CHAT framework. Hence, varying subject positions within activity systems give rise to diverse perspectives on how problem-based learning differs between traditional and online programs. For instance, some participants valued the online program for its applied strategies that engage them with real-world issues, fostering a dialogue between theoretical knowledge and practical application (Karabatak & Turhan, 2017a). However, some instructors were more critical, noting that online programs often lack authentic real-world grounding, as online materials rarely align with actual leadership cases, which require deeper engagement than digital resources alone can provide (Danzig et al., 2005).

Although participants reported benefits such as self-paced progress, the ability to revisit materials, and reduced classroom distractions (Bolliger, 2003), it is important to note that these accounts reflect perceptions rather than verified outcomes of online and hybrid SLPDPs. These findings on adaptability and flexibility align with the CHAT principle that subject–rule compliance is a dynamic process that evolves through changes in mediating tools, which, in turn, shape learning experiences (Ramanair, 2016). Nevertheless, our review cannot confirm whether these affordances translate into the effective development of leadership competencies in practice. Similarly, while problem-based learning and applied strategies were valued for connecting theory and practice (Karabatak & Turhan, 2017a), the studies reviewed rarely provide empirical evidence of enhanced learning outcomes, making comparisons with traditional programs difficult.

Therefore, the review advances a balanced discussion that integrates both the promises and critical perspectives, reinforcing Byrne-Jiménez et al.’s (2017) argument that technology-driven pedagogical shifts demand deliberate and contextually grounded design to realize their transformative potential. Primary contradictions arise as participants grapple with the technological demands of online learning, detracting from meaningful engagement and reflective learning. For example, as insider instructors, Saeed and Moreira (2010) self-reported that both instructors and adult learners often spend more time addressing technical issues than engaging in reflective activities, leading to a shift in traditional roles. This misalignment between learners’ needs and technology’s affordances creates internal conflicts that hinder the educational process.

The evolving role of instructors alongside new technologies and additional roles, such as technology facilitators, results in unclear responsibilities (Gedera, 2016). The review suggests that emerging divisions of labor may disrupt traditional roles, leading to confusion regarding responsibilities (Boyer, 2003; Correia & Davis, 2008). From Feenberg’s (2001) perspective, this reflects how technological artifacts are embedded within and reproduce particular social and pedagogical norms in that there is no such thing as a neutral medium in service of learners and instructors. Without critically examining these norms, educators risk perpetuating a technocratic paradigm that constrains pedagogical innovation and critical engagement (Selwyn, 2021).

Additionally, tertiary contradictions manifest as discrepancies between traditional pedagogical norms and the expectations of hybrid models. While learners value the flexibility of hybrid formats, they also experience a disconnect due to the lack of face-to-face interaction (Oliver et al., 2018). This highlights not only the underutilized potential for human interaction in online SLPDPs but also the inadequacy of current online instruction practices in supporting meaningful, creative dialogues grounded in robust pedagogical premises. Our study thus extends Byrne-Jiménez et al.’s (2017) critique by demonstrating that, without deliberate and intentional pedagogical design, hybrid models may inadvertently reproduce or even intensify existing pedagogical shortcomings, rather than fostering transformative leadership education.

To navigate these congruencies and contradictions within SLPDPs, it is essential to implement strategies that foster peer communication and collaboration. The CHAT framework emphasizes creating interconnected activity systems that leverage both online and traditional modalities, enriching the educational experience. Participants noted that enhanced communication through digital platforms was crucial for fostering a sense of community that transcends geographical boundaries and supports collective engagement (Nordin et al., 2012). This aligns with “the sense of participation where heterogeneous participants position themselves as learners in developmental processes in time and space” (R. Engeström, 2014, p. 144).

Thus, we conclude that intentionally designing hybrid SLPDPs to enhance interpersonal communication can help address emotional and social learning aspects, mitigating feelings of isolation and loneliness in online environments (Moe & Rye, 2011). Such an approach aligns with CHAT principles, emphasizing the crucial role of social interactions and cultural contexts in shaping learning experiences. Moreover, providing comprehensive training and support for instructors is essential for their effective adaptation to hybrid environments, ensuring they can guide students through online learning complexities.

Implications

Our systematic review offers important considerations for school leaders, program developers, and policymakers. Engaging in hybrid learning environments enhances educational experiences by accommodating diverse learning styles and schedules (Garcia et al., 2014; Sherman et al., 2010). SLPDP program developers should actively design flexible programs that enable (aspiring) school leaders to balance their professional and personal commitments. This emphasis on flexibility is warranted, given that participants reported enhanced self-efficacy and confidence in instructional leadership, underscoring the importance of amplifying their voices on instructional quality and the necessary support mechanisms. Developers should prioritize both quality assurance and program accessibility. While online programs provide flexibility, concerns about instructional quality remain (Horvitz et al., 2015). Robust support systems, including comprehensive technological and pedagogical training for instructors, are essential for effective online teaching.

Additionally, aligning policies and resources with the evolving landscape of educational technology and hybrid learning is crucial. Many participants, both learners and instructors, faced substantial infrastructure-related obstacles, which diverted their focus from meaningful learning to troubleshooting technical issues (Saeed & Moreira, 2010). Authorities should advocate for the infrastructure needed to support online and hybrid programs, addressing issues like inadequate software and poor internet connectivity, especially in under-resourced areas. Establishing guidelines that promote best practices in quality assurance for online education is vital for maintaining high instructional standards while expanding access. By fostering continuous dialogue with program developers and school leaders, educational authorities can create an ecosystem that effectively integrates technology into leadership preparation programs.

Finally, future systematic reviews are needed to gain deeper insights into the effects of online and hybrid SLPDPs on local educational activity systems, particularly concerning the roles of participants, instructors, and technological tools. In this context, the rapid expansion of online programs and the associated concerns about quality and sustainability warrant further investigation from the perspectives of SLPDP directors and instructors, as understanding the motives behind these shifts—beyond accessibility—can provide critical insights into how these programs are evaluated, designed, and implemented. Identifying primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary contradictions within these delivery models highlights the complexities of educational environments and the need for a nuanced understanding of how these contradictions can inform program design and instructional practices. Investigating the interplay between structural tensions and congruencies can help develop more effective, inclusive, and sustainable educational practices, ultimately enhancing the preparation of future educational leaders.

Limitations

While applying CHAT in this systematic review provides valuable insights into online and hybrid SLPDPs, several inherent limitations must be acknowledged. A key limitation is that many reviewed studies, as can be expected, do not explicitly adopt the CHAT perspective in their original designs. This lack of direct engagement means interpretations may not fully capture the complexities that CHAT aims to elucidate. Without a foundational understanding of CHAT in the reviewed studies, the depth of insight regarding contradictions may be limited, impacting the validity of the review’s conclusions.

Additionally, interpreting quantitative studies through the CHAT lens presents challenges. Quantitative research often prioritizes numerical data and statistical analysis, which may not align with the rich, contextual understanding that CHAT promotes. While meta-analytical approaches can reveal trends and correlations, they often overlook the intricate interactions and contradictions inherent in educational activity systems as defined by CHAT. This limitation indicates a need for future quantitative research to further support our findings from the narrative synthesis in this study.

Another key limitation of the present study is inherent in the qualitative, secondary-data nature of our systematic review. Our narrative synthesis relies on the characteristics and claims reported in published papers, which primarily reflect the perspectives of learners and instructors. Consequently, these narratives cannot be assumed to represent the actual outputs or effectiveness of online or hybrid SLPDPs. As such, while we report positive aspects, such as active learning associated with problem-based approaches, these findings are not directly comparable with outcomes from traditional programs. Additionally, our review does not provide a comprehensive assessment of which types of programs are moving online or the extent to which specific instructional designs influence effectiveness, underscoring the need for further empirical research to evaluate these claims in practice.

An additional limitation concerns the methodological diversity and variable rigor of the reviewed studies, which constrained our ability to systematically evaluate the evidentiary strength of reported findings. The included studies varied considerably in their research purposes, designs, and measurement approaches, ranging from exploratory qualitative investigations to quantitative studies relying primarily on project-developed self-report instruments. In many cases, detailed information regarding instrument validity, reliability, and methodological justification was limited or inconsistently reported. As a result, while our synthesis identifies recurring interpretive patterns and reported outcomes, these should not be understood as uniformly robust or directly comparable effects of the programs.

Given the relatively small number of studies included in this review and the interpretive nature of the narrative synthesis approach, it remains difficult to comprehensively assess how well current online and hybrid SLPDPs reflect the demands of national and international quality standards for effective leadership preparation. The limited empirical base underscores a broader issue in that our understanding of pedagogical components in leadership development remains underdeveloped in terms of evaluating their instructional effectiveness, making it challenging to determine what should be consistently present across delivery models. This gap becomes particularly salient when considering national and international leadership standards and competencies, which increasingly require the integration of digital literacy. As educational systems continue transitioning toward hybrid and online modalities, there is a pressing need for research that examines how these environments can be intentionally designed to embed and support such competencies. Future work should also critically evaluate whether these program designs genuinely prepare leaders to meet evolving standards, rather than merely shifting delivery modes without pedagogical transformation.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jrl-10.1177_19427751261445852 – Supplemental material for Uncovering Promises and Challenges of Online-Hybrid School Leadership Preparation and Development Programs: A Narrative Synthesis Through the Lens of Activity Theory

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jrl-10.1177_19427751261445852 for Uncovering Promises and Challenges of Online-Hybrid School Leadership Preparation and Development Programs: A Narrative Synthesis Through the Lens of Activity Theory by Sedat Gümüş and Köksal Banoğlu in Journal of Research on Leadership Education

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-jrl-10.1177_19427751261445852 – Supplemental material for Uncovering Promises and Challenges of Online-Hybrid School Leadership Preparation and Development Programs: A Narrative Synthesis Through the Lens of Activity Theory

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-jrl-10.1177_19427751261445852 for Uncovering Promises and Challenges of Online-Hybrid School Leadership Preparation and Development Programs: A Narrative Synthesis Through the Lens of Activity Theory by Sedat Gümüş and Köksal Banoğlu in Journal of Research on Leadership Education