INTRODUCTION

Digital competency in teaching offers a substantial area for innovation and transformation in education. This work aims to provide scientific evidence to support progress in evaluating digital competency in teaching (DCT) as one of the necessary lines of research, as suggested by Cabero-Almenara and Palacios-Rodríguez (2020), to improve the level of DCT at any educational stage. The literature review aimed to exhaustively identify research published between 2017 and February 2022 whose focus was the evaluation of DCT, to inquire about the type of research design followed in the studies, the characteristics of the instruments used, and to know the results and the implications of their analyses.

DCT encompasses various conceptualizations. The European Commission, for example, defines digital competency as the set of essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes to guarantee the safe and critical use of Information Society Technologies (IST) for work, leisure, and communication. It is based on basic ICT skills with the computer used to obtain, evaluate, store, produce, present, exchange information, and communicate and participate in collaborative networks through the internet (European Parliament, 2016). On the other hand, Gisbert Cervera et al. (2016) defined DCT as a new set of skills and knowledge that must guarantee excellence in professional practice and support student learning in the digital world. Close to these conceptions, Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik (2018) saw it as necessary in a reality where resources and digital media are part of daily educational practice.

The European Commission’s concern about improving citizens’ digital literacy is worth noting. It launched the Digital Education Action Plan for 2021-2027, aiming to increase the proportion of European citizens with digital skills to 70% by 2025 (European Commission, 2021). They highlighted the teacher as responsible for their students’ digital literacy (García-Ruiz & Pérez Escoda, 2021; Redecker & Punie, 2017). DCT, in the last decade, and notably as of 2020, has been recognized as one of the core competencies for the exercise of the teaching profession at any educational level (Dervenis et al., 2022; Fernández-Luque, 2021).

Various international institutions have proposed models and conceptual frameworks to develop DCT (Barbazán et al., 2021; Caena & Redecker, 2019; Pérez-Escoda et al., 2019), allowing various research groups to analyze DCT with tools inspired by them. At different contextual levels, there is the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for teachers and the European Digital Competency Framework for Teachers (DigcompEdu). At the national level, we found the Common Framework for Digital Teaching Competency in Spain, the ICT Competency Model for professional teacher development in Colombia, the Model of ICT Competencies and Standards for the teaching profession in Chile, and the Digital Teaching Framework in the United Kingdom. Likewise, other organizations and researchers have contributed essential models such as the ISTE Standards for Educators of the International Society for Technology in Education or the T-PACK model. Cabero et al. (2020a) highlighted the models’ commonality of working with competencies, criteria, and descriptors, in addition to profiling each standard to determine how to use and integrate ICT, identify needs, and define personalized training itineraries.

Previous literature reviews focused on DCT, from which it has been possible to understand the scope and the need to improve this competency in teachers. Research and literature reviews focused on DCT in higher education stand out relevantly ( Barbazán et al., 2021; Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos et al., 2022; Durán et al., 2016; Esteve-Mon et al., 2020; Farias-Gaytan, 2021; Sillat et al., 2021), with few focused on other educational stages (Fernández-Batanero, 2021).

The review carried out by Pinto et al. (2022) on the development of DCT in initial teacher training, based on research published between 2009 and 2019, highlighted the significant increase in publications in the last decade, especially those derived from research in which the results of the evaluation of this competency are shown. Along the same lines, Saltos-Rivas et al. (2021) pointed out a considerable increase in research that aimed to evaluate DCT in higher education since 2010.

Most of these publications highlighted the need to improve teacher training in digital competency for current teachers and teachers in training (Melash et al., 2020). They also recommended expanding research on DCT to guarantee the effectiveness of this training (Gisbert Cervera et al., 2016; Guillén-Gámez and Mayorga-Fernández, 2020), discover which factors positively affect its improvement, and reduce those that generate dysfunctions (Frolova et al., 2020).

Given this prolific DCT research productivity of research, the absence of literature reviews regarding how DCT is evaluated, what information collection instruments exist, or the results obtained in the various studies is striking. Thus, this work has been undertaken from a systematic review of the literature considering the databases of the most prestigious scientific journals.

This work focuses on knowing which digital competency frameworks have been considered by researchers to carry out their studies, taking as references the European framework DIGCOMPEDU (European Commission, 2017) and the Spanish (INTEF, 2017), in force until its update in May 2022. The motivations that drive the interest in these frameworks coincide with the proposals of the study by Cabero et al. (2020b), being endorsed by experts as the most internationally transcendental, also serving teachers to know what digital skills they should develop.

From this context, the objective was to review the most relevant scientific literature on the evaluation of DCT in three areas of research:

— Research area 1. Identify research focused on assessing DCT and its quality indicators concerning the journals in which they were published.

— Research area 2. Describe the research methods used to assess teachers’ DCT.

— Research area 3. Analyze the evaluations of the DCT and the experts’ recommendations.

METHOD

This study provides a synthesis of DCT assessments based on the systematic review of the literature that takes the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards as a reference. To answer specific research questions, we used this updated guide to direct the review process in identifying information sources, eligibility criteria, search strategies, study selection, data analysis, and the systematization of the findings (Kitchenham et al., 2010; Yepes-Núñez et al., 2021).

Phase 1: Research questions

In Table 1, the research questions have been structured according to the three areas previously described.

Phase 2: Information sources and eligibility criteria

The two most prestigious databases, Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus, were consulted to search for the studies. The search was confined to studies that contained the descriptors in the title, abstract, or keywords, were open access and in article format, written in English and Spanish, and belonged to the area of educational sciences in WOS or social sciences in SCOPUS. In the case of WOS, studies from the entire collection of databases were included. The time frame established was from 2017 to February 2022 because it coincided with the publication of the European Framework for the Digital Competency of Educators DigCompEdu (Redecker & Punie, 2017) and with the increase in studies on DCT assessment in both databases (Sillat et al., 2021).

Phase 3: Search strategies

For the search of the studies in the databases, the most used keywords in the scientific literature on this subject were established, considering the research questions. They were the following: digital competency, digital teaching competency, evaluation, assessment, educator, teacher, lecture, preservice teacher, teacher training, and future teacher. Based on these terms and the use of different Boolean operators, the following search equation was designed in both databases: (“digital competency” OR “digital teaching competency”) AND (evaluate* OR assess*) AND (educator* OR teacher* OR lecturer* OR “preservice teacher*” OR “teacher* training” OR “future teacher*”).

Phase 4: Selection process

Applying the eligibility criteria and the search equation in both databases resulted in 210 articles, of which 82 were duplicates. The remaining 128 were screened by reading the title and abstract (in the case of not being clear, the full text was read); the exclusion criteria were other education professionals (education inspectors and social educators); studies that were not empirical; and studies that do not involve this topic. This screening process resulted in the selection of 66 articles (Figure 1).

RESULTS

The presentation of the results of the systematic review of the literature was structured per the different research questions. The results emanated from a content analysis of the articles (referenced in Table 2 at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21125797) based on the three areas outlined for this study.

Research area 1. Identify research focused on assessing DCT and its quality indicators concerning the journals in which they were published

The total number of articles satisfying the exclusion and inclusion criteria was 66. In response to Q1, they were mainly distributed in the WOS ESCI/SCOPUS (n=26) and WOS SSCI/SCOPUS (n=22) databases, unlike WOS ESCI (n=7) and SCOPUS (n=11). On the other hand, the articles published in the best positioned journals (Q1) in WOS SSCI and SCOPUS were those of Cattaneo et al. (2022), Gallego-Arrufat et al. (2019), Gudmundsdottir et al. (2020), Hämäläinen et al. (2021), Pérez and Hernández (2020), Pongsakdi et al. (2021), Silva et al. (2019a), Tomczyk et al. (2021), and Usart Rodríguez et al. (2021).

Regarding P2, it should be noted that between 2017 and 2019, 24.24% of the articles were published. There is evidence of a growing interest in this topic since 2020, with 75.75% of the accumulated productivity through February 2022, highlighting 28 articles published in 2021 (Figure 2).

The geographical distribution of the authors indicated that Spaniards authored 75.75% of the investigations, and only 24.24% of the articles were signed by authors from countries outside the European Union. Regarding the geographical distribution of the first author of the articles, we found a great diversity of researchers worldwide, as reflected in Figure 3.

Research area 2. Describe the research methods used to assess teachers’ DCT

The research design of the analyzed studies (P3) was mostly quantitative with 89.39% of the cases (Falcó Boudet, 2017; Jiménez-Hernández et al., 2020) and, to a lesser extent, qualitative with 6.06% (Sales et al. al., 2020; Suárez-Guerrero et al., 2021), and mixed with 4.45% (Llopis Nebot et al., 2021; Ruiz-Cabezas et al., 2021). Of the total studies with a quantitative approach, studies with non-experimental designs predominated with 77.27%, compared to experimental ones with 13.63% (Marín Suelves et al., 2019; Pongsakdi et al., 2021; Romero-García et al., 2020).

Regarding the sample of these studies (P4), those of active teachers (n = 39) predominated compared to future teachers (n = 27). In the case of studies on the evaluation of the DCT of future teachers, more samples were found with undergraduate students or equivalent degrees in other countries (n_undergrad=13; n_graduate=8; N_both = 6). On the other hand, more studies were identified that brought together active teachers in different educational stages (n = 15) and university teachers (n = 13), than other stages or teachings in the educational system (n _Adults = 1; n_Artistic = 1; n_F.P. = 2; n_Secondary = 5; n _Primary = 1; n_Kindergarden = 1).

As occurred with the geographical distribution of the authors, 78.79% of the studies had samples from e European Union countries (78.79%), and the majority were Spanish (63.63%). Likewise, there were six studies with data from samples from different countries, highlighting two that collected them in 7 and 11 countries, with 873 and 53,390 active teachers, respectively. Logically, there was no homogeneity in the sample sizes in the studies. In the case of studies focused on validating a DCT measurement instrument, the sizes were small when they only focused on expert judgments and ranged between 142 and 1,098 participants when validating the subjects under study. Regarding the sample size when the DCT was evaluated, it varied between 40 and 867 participants in quantitative approaches and 11 to 26 when qualitative techniques were used.

In response to Q5 about the particularities of the DCT assessment tools, the types of tools, and information collection techniques, it was found that 89.39% of the studies used a self-perception questionnaire about the DCT. Three studies used a mixed approach, combining the questionnaire with focus groups (Llopis Nevot et al., 2021; Ruiz Cabezas et al., 2020), interviews, documentary analyses, and systematic observations (Prieto-Ballester et al., 2021). Two qualitative studies used the interview (Suárez Guerrero et al., 2021); in one, they also conducted discussion groups (Sales et al., 2020). On the other hand, studies were found that evaluated the DCT with a rubric (Marcano et al., 2020) or with a platform in which the teacher obtained the result of the self-assessment, and based on this, proposed training activities (Viñoles -Cosentino et al., 2021). There were studies such as the one by Tomczyk et al. (2021), in which they combined tools that measure DCT through self-perception with competency tests that measured the actual level acquired.

Regarding the design and validation of the tools to assess DCT, 49 studies (74.24%) used an ad hoc instrument or adapted it from others. Among these, nine studies stood out in which design and validation were the central objects of the investigation. Five addressed active teachers (Barragán et al., 2020; Guillen et al., 2021; Medina et al., 2018; Tourón et al., 2018; Viñoles-Cosentino et al., 2021) and four concerned future teachers. (Cabero et al., 2020a; Lázaro Cantabrana et al., 2019; Marcano et al., 2020; Usort et al., 2021). The remaining 17 studies used an instrument already validated. Specifically, the instruments that used by more researchers were the DigCompEdu Check In instrument by Redecker and Punie (2017) in six studies (Cabero et al., 2021; Dias-Trindade & Moreira, 2020; Dias-Trindade et al ., 2021; Karunaweera et al., 2021; Torres Barzabal et al. 2022; Yazon et., 2019), the questionnaire to assess DCT by Tourón et al. (2018) in three studies (Domínguez-Lloria et al., 2021; Prieto et al., 2021; Romero et al., 2020), and the COMDID-A by Lázaro Cantabrana et al. (2019) in two studies (Palau Martín et al., 2019; Paz Saavedra et al., 2022).

Logically, no published study was found that developed or adapted a tool or used an already validated one that did not meet the validation and reliability parameters established in educational research.

Regarding the content of the study tools, there were a greater number of studies that took competency frameworks from different institutions as a reference (n = 32) compared to tools in which no referents were indicated (n = 11) or in which various sources were used (frameworks or tools from other authors) (n = 23). The DIGCOMPEDU framework (Redecker and Punie, 2017) and the Digital Competency Framework (INTEF, 2017) stood out especially, as they were followed by 11 and 12 investigations, respectively, when defining the dimensions around which the evaluation tools were structured. It should be noted that these frameworks were taken as references in studies of countries outside the European Union, such as the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, and Turkey (Al Khateeb, 2017; Çebi and Reisoğlu, 2020; Karunaweera & Lee, 2021; Maiier & Koval, 2021; Yazón et al., 2019).

To a lesser extent, other frameworks were followed, such as the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (2019), the Russian Teachers’ Digital Literacy of the Analytical Center NAFI (2019), the Definition of DCT by the Department of Ensenyament Generalitat of Catalonia (2016), the DIGCOMP (CE-JRC) of Ferreri (2013), the European Certificate of Computer Skills of CEPIS (1995) and the ICT Standards for Initial Teacher Training of the Ministry of Education Chile (2009), as shown in Table 3 (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21125842)..

Among the studies that did not provide references or used various sources for the construction of their instruments, some established the DCT assessment dimensions, considering the types of knowledge that the concept of competency suggests: knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Escobar-Zúñiga, 2021; Hämäläinen et al., 2021; Pongsakdi et al., 2021; Ruiz Cabezas, 2020). Some designed dimensions that linked DCT evaluation with specific functions assigned to teachers, such as focused attention to students with disabilities (Medina-García et al., 2021), the development of active and innovative learning methodologies (Hossein-Mohand et al., 2021), or tutoring (Guillen-Gamez et al., 2021). On the other hand, some designed DCT instruments adjusted to specific topics like cyberbullying (Gudmundsdottir et al., 2020), responsible internet use (Baena-Morales et al., 2020; García-Ruiz & Pérez-Escoda, 2021), and digital security (Gallego-Arrufat et al., 2019).

Finally, the types of analysis carried out in the investigations (P6) were addressed. Although most of the studies that designed their evaluation tools conducted preliminary validation and reliability analyses, there were nine studies whose main objective was to design and validate an instrument to evaluate DCT. These studies carried out construct-validation processes through internal consistency and reliability analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis ( Barragán-Sánchez et al., 2020; Cabero-Almenara et al., 2020; Guillén-Gámez et al., 2021; Medina-García et al., 2021; Tourón et al., 2018) and content validation through expert judgment (Lázaro Cantabrana et al., 2019; Marcano et al., 2020; Usort Rodríguez et al., 2021; Viñoles-Cosentino et al., 2021).

Most of the studies based on a quantitative approach conducted descriptive, correlational ( Jorge-Vázquez et al., 2021; Paz Saavedra et al., 2022), inferential (Gallego-Arrufat et al., 2019; Muñoz and Ruiz-Domínguez, 2021; Pongsakdi et al., 2021), predictive (Çebi & Reisoğlu, 2020; Guillen-Gamez & Mayorga-Fernandez, 2020; Myyry et al., 2022) and regression analyses (Cattaneo et al., 2022; Hämäläinen et al., 2021; Jiménez-Hernández et al., 2020; Muñoz & Ruiz-Domínguez, 2021; Tomczyk, 2021; Tomczyk et al., 2021). Studies based on a qualitative approach focused on inductive and deductive content analyses (Sales et al., 2020; Suárez-Guerrero et al., 2021).

Research area 3. Analyze the evaluations of the DCT and the experts’ recommendations

Considering the results in each investigation of this systematic review to answer Q7, we found evidence that, at a general level, the DCT of teachers must be improved. Although some studies indicated differences depending on the dimensions analyzed, there was no unanimity in the results (Al Khateeb, 2017; Dias-Trindade & Moreira, 2020; Hämäläinen et al., 2021; Muñoz-Pérez & Cubo Delgado, 2019; Muñoz & Ruiz, 2021). We observed differences in some research in the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that a teacher must master to be considered digitally competent (Gallego-Arrufat et al., 2019; Napal Fraile et al., 2018). This is pointed out by Hämäläinen et al. (2021) when analyzing data from teachers in 11 countries, revealing differences in the skills and knowledge acquired and, to a lesser extent, in the attitudes of teachers, recognizing the importance of digitalization in the educational field and the interest in improving their DCT; as reported in the studies by Muñoz Pérez & Cubo Delgado (2019), Ruiz Cabezas et al. (2020) and Tomczyk et al. (2021).

In this regard, it should be noted that a large part of the DCT evaluations collected the self-perception of teachers, which does not necessarily coincide with the actual level; even in some studies, it was evident that the self-perceived level of competency is higher than the acquired one. (Silva et al., 2019a; Tomczyk, 2021; Viñoles-Cosentino et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021). For this reason, authors such as Rossi Cordero and Barajas Frutos (2018) proposed reducing the gap between the desired digital competency and that acquired through training, which teachers favor (Muñoz & Ruiz-Domínguez, 2021).

The results found in the evaluation of the DCT level show that a series of factors influence it. The contextual factors include teachers’ workloads or the availability of technological resources (Cattaneo et al., 2022 ). The personal factors (Hämäläinen et al., 2021) included age (Paz Saavedra et al., 2020), professional commitment (Falcó Boudet, 2017), one’s attitude towards digital competency (Al Khateeb, 2017), the number of research and innovation projects in which they participated (Guillén-Gámez & Mayorga-Fernández, 2020), the perceived level of digital competency (Çebi & Reisoğlu, 2020) and the educational level of teachers (Santos et al., 2021). The study by Yazón et al. (2019) showed that the higher the DCT level, the higher the scientific productivity of the teaching staff. However, Heuling et al. (2021) found the reproduction of digital-divide patterns caused by the influence of socioeconomic origins and gender on future teachers.

The authors of the 66 articles analyzed, in addition to presenting their diagnostic results, made a considerable effort to provide recommendations and proposals for improving the DCT and its evaluation; their analyses and syntheses attempted to respond to question 8 in this literature review.

The researchers called for an effort to improve the level of DCT through an adapted training offering and the proper use of digital resources and technologies:

— Permanent training specialized in DCT (Al Khateeb, 2017; Cabero-Almenara et al. 2020c; Falcó Boudet, 2017; Silva et al., 2019a).

— Initial training in universities with a greater focus on DCT (Falcó Boudet, 2017; Gómez-Trigueros et al., 2021; Moreno-Guerrero, 2020; Silva et al., 2019b) and transversal training in the curriculum (Jiménez-Hernández, 2020; Marín Suelves et al., 2019; Sales et al., 2020). This training should focus on managing digital and methodological resources to guarantee correct implementation in the teaching-learning process (Maiier & Koval, 2021).

— Encouraging the frequent use of technology in pedagogical practices, which requires providing more resources in schools (Al Khateeb, 2017) and a positive attitude towards their use (Al Khateeb, 2017; Cattaneo et al., 2022; Hämäläinen et al., 2021), in addition to the responsible use of technologies (Baena-Morales et al., 2020; García-Ruiz & Pérez-Escoda, 2020; Gudmundsdottir et al., 2020).

Concerning the improvements proposed concerning the research on DCT and its evaluation, the following should be highlighted:

— Adapt the information collection instruments to detect and solve the challenges that hinder and discourage teachers from improving their DCT (Al Khateeb, 2017).

— Combine quantitative and qualitative research methods and develop new evaluation methods (Al Khateeb, 2017; Hämäläinen et al., 2021), such as evaluation rubrics (Marcano et al., 2020) or evaluation accompanied by a formative intervention (Miguel-Revilla et al., 2020).

— Collect evidence of DCT through competency tests that complement the teacher’s perception (Viñoles-Cosentino et al., 2021) and may lack objectivity (Baena-Morales, 2020; Myyry et al., 2022).

— Take into account factors that affect the results: sociodemographic factors, such as gender (Esteve-Mon et al., 2020), years of teaching experience (Zhao, 2021), age or educational level (Flores-Lueg & Roig -Vila, 2019), and structural factors, such as the provision of resources or training opportunities for teachers (Cattaneo et al., 2022).

— Expand the size of the samples and the geographical contexts in which data are collected to compare results (Jorge-Vázquez, 2021; Prieto Ballester et al., 2021)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The systematic review of the literature addressed in this work analyzed the 66 publications in high-impact scientific journals between 2017 and 2022. The focus of the study was the evaluation of DCT to contribute to the improvement of one of the essential teaching competencies in the current educational and technological context, such as the digital one, considering that to improve it, one must know what mastery teachers have in this regard and, consequently, decide on the necessary improvement actions.

In the first area of research, the results highlighted the relevant role of DCT as one of the critical competencies of the teaching profession and educational quality to respond to today’s societal demands, coinciding with the European Commission (2021), Dervenis et al. (2022), and Fernández-Luque (2021). Also, a publication boom in WOS and Scopus revealed the enormous scientific interest in DCT assessment since 2020, especially in Spain and other European countries. These findings coincide with other previous investigations ( Pinto et al., 2022; Saltos-Rivas et al., 2021; Sillat et al., 2021) that highlighted the exponential growth of researchers’ interest in this subject, especially during the pandemic, effectively verifying that 2021 had the most articles since 2017.

The literature review could answer the questions in the second area of research by showing that, although most research follows the non-experimental quantitative method to assess DCT, a wide variety of assessment instruments have been used, as highlighted by Silva et al. (2019b). These follow the frameworks established by the European Commission (Digcomp and DigcompEdu) and the Spanish INTEF (Common Framework for Digital Teaching Competency), providing relevant scientific recognition along the lines proposed by Cabero et al. (2020a; 2020b; 2021).

The third area of research proposed in this review sought to know the results provided by the experts regarding DCT. In this sense, we verified that, despite the difficulty of reaching a single global diagnosis, a relevant part of the studies showed that the level of DCT perceived by teachers was lower than their actual mastery. However, agreeing with Melash et al. (2020), their interest in improving digital competency highlights a positive attitude towards using technologies in their practices and teacher training.

Finally, the results of this research revealed a series of recommendations proposed by the researchers who intend to improve the evaluation of DCT in two areas: formation (training) plans and lines of research so that the contributions are highly valuable and facilitate processes and proposals to improve the DCT. The analyzed investigations coincided with Melash et al. (2020) on the need to improve the design of training plans and with Frolova et al. (2020), Gisbert Cervera et al. (2016), and Guillén-Gámez and Mayorga-Fernández (2020) in continuing the line of research regarding the evaluation instruments used by the scientific community. Considering the list of recommendations extracted from the analyzed studies, we highlight the proposal by Al Khateeb (2017) because it synthesizes the most significant agreement of the experts: making teachers aware of the need to improve their digital competency through continuous training plans, offering more training in digital competency and technological resources to the centers, and increasing qualitative research that deepens the level of DCT.

The conclusions of this review highlight that DCT is recognized as a critical competency in the teaching profession; its improvement should guarantee success in the quality of teaching. The analyzed investigations also highlight the importance of designing training plans that promote their improvement, both for active teachers and teachers in training, even adapting said plans to the different educational stages in which they practice their professions in the different specialties. Likewise, the research analyzed shows the need to improve the evaluation of this competency to design training plans based on the results. For this, the experts recommend increasing research focused on assessing teachers in different stages and specialties, combining quantitative and qualitative methods, overcoming the limitations of self-perception questionnaires, using competency tests, and expanding the study samples to attain a global vision. Therefore, we can conclude in this work that knowing a) how DCT is currently assessed and b) the experts’ recommendations can be a valuable resource for future research that responds to the initially posed challenge of improving DCT.

Therefore, the findings presented in this systematic review of the literature provide an overview of methods, participants, data collection instruments, results, and recommendations of the authors in high-impact publications on improving DCT as a critical piece of quality education in all educational levels of current and future society.

The study’s limitations include that only the publications of two indexing systems (WoS and Scopus) were considered and selected for their breadth and prestige in the academic community. However, in future studies, it would be advisable to integrate other indexing systems where more articles on this subject might be found. The study results had implications for educational practice, such as training digital skills to facilitate educational innovations in the classroom. In the same way, implications for research in the designs and sample sizes are denoted by knowing the practices teachers carry out in developing DCT. Therefore, this study invites additional research on digital teaching skills with the vision to improve educational practices, analyzing, among others, the impact on DCT derived from updating the Framework of Reference of the Spanish Teaching Digital Competency.

Acknowledgments

This work is framed within “ALFAMED” (Euro-American Network of Researchers), with the support of the R&D Project “Youtubers and Instagrammers: media competition in emerging prosumers” (RTI2018-093303-B-I00), funded by the AEI of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities and FEDER; the Project “Contribution to media literacy in the Caribbean,” funded by the European Union (Ventana Adelante-ICT385-22). Also, the framework of the Project “NOVUS OpenResearchLab: innovation with artificial intelligence and robotics to scale levels of reasoning domains for complexity” (ID Novus N21-207), funded by Tecnologico de Monterrey (Mexico).

The authors acknowledge the financial and technical support of the Writing Lab, Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico, in the production of this work.

REFERENCES

Al Khateeb, A.A.M. (2017). Measuring Digital Competence and ICT Literacy: An Exploratory Study of In-Service English Language Teachers in the Context of Saudi Arabia. International Education Studies, 10(12), 38-51. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n12p38 (*)

Baena-Morales, S., Martinez-Roig, R., & Hernádez-Amorós, M.J (2020). Sustainability and educational technology— A description of the teaching self-concept. Sustainability, 12(24), 10309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410309 (*)

Barbazán, D., Ben, Abdellah, K.D.M., & Montes Hoyos, C.M. (2021). La competencia digital docente en Educación Superior: Estado del arte en España y Latinoamérica. Etic@net, 21(2), 267-282. https://doi.org/10.30827/eticanet.v21i2.20837

Barragán-Sánchez, R., Corujo-Vélez, M.C., Palacios-Rodríguez, A., & Román-Graván, P. (2020). Teaching Digital Competence and Eco-Responsible Use of Technologies: Development and Validation of a Scale. Sustainability, 12(18), 7721. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187721 (*)

Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos, V., Matarranz, M., Casado-Aranda, L.A., & Otto, A. (2022). Teachers’ digital competencies in higher education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00312-8

Cabero-Almenara, J., Barroso-Osuna, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J.J., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2020). Validación del cuestionario de competencia digital para futuros maestros mediante ecuaciones estructurales. Bordón. Revista de Pedagógía, 72(2), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.13042/Bordon.2020.73436 (*)

Cabero-Almenara, J., Barroso-Osuna, J., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2021). Digital competences of educators in Health Sciences: Their relationship with some variables. Educación Médica, 22(2), 94-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edumed.2020.11.014 (*)

Cabero-Almenara, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J. J., Palacios-Rodríguez, A., & Barroso- Osuna, J. (2021). Comparative European DigCompEdu Framework (JRC) and Common Framework for Teaching Digital Competence (INTEF) through expert judgment. Texto Livre: Linguagem e Tecnologia, 14(1). http://doi.org/10.35699/1983-3652.2021.25740

Cabero-Almenara, J., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2020). Marco Europeo de Competencia Digital Docente «DigCompEdu» y cuestionario «DigCompEdu Check-In». EDMETIC, 9(1), 213-234. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v9i1.12462

Cabero-Almenara, J., Romero-Tena, R., Barroso-Osuna, J., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2020). Marcos de Competencias Digitales Docentes y su adecuación al profesorado universitario y no universitario. Revista Caribeña de Investigación Educativa (RECIE), 4(2), 137-158. https://doi.org/10.32541/recie.2020.v4i2.pp137-158

Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European digital competence framework for educators (DigCompEdu). European Journal of Education, 54(3),1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12345

Cattaneo, A.P., Antonietti, C., & Rauseo, M. (2022). How digitalised are vocational teachers? Assessing digital competence in vocational education and looking at its underlying factors. Computers & Education, 176, 104358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104358 (*)

Çebi, A., & Reisoğlu, I. (2020). Digital Competence: A Study from the Perspective of Pre-service Teachers in Turkey. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 9(2), 294-308. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2020.7.583 (*)

Comisión Europea (2021). Medidas de la UE para atender el bajo nivel de competencias digitales. Tribunal de cuentas europeo. https://bit.ly/3CGKtwQ

Dervenis, C., Fitsilis, P., & Latrellis, O. (2022). A review of research on teacher competencies in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-08-2021-0126

Días-Trindade, S., & Moreira, J.A. (2020). Assessment of high school teachers on their digital competences. Magis, 3, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.m13.ahst (*)

Dias-Trindade, S., Moreira, J.A., & Ferreira, A.G. (2021). Evaluation of the teachers’ digital competences in primary and secondary education in Portugal with DigCompEdu CheckIn in pandemic times. Acta Scientiarum. Technology, 43(1), e56383. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascitechnol.v43i1.56383 (*)

Domínguez-Lloria, S., & Pino-Juste, M. (2021). Digital competence in public schools Secondary Music teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Revista electrónica de LEEME, 47. https://doi.org/10.7203/LEEME.47.20515 (*)

Durán M., Gutiérrez, I., & Prendes, M. (2016). Análisis conceptual de modelos de competencia digital del profesorado universitario. RELATEC. Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa, 15(1), 97-114. https://doi.org/10.17398/1695-288X.15.1.97

Escobar-Zúñiga, J.C., Arenas-Martínez, E.C., & Sánchez-Valencia, P. A. (2021). Metodología de evaluación de competencias digitales en estudiantes de maestría con modalidad virtual. Formación universitaria, 14(4), 71-78. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-50062021000400071 (*)

Esteve-Mon, F.M., Adell-Segura, J., Llopis Nebot, M.A., Valdeolivas Novella, G., & Pacheco Aparicio, J. (2019). The Development of Computational Thinking in Student Teachers through an Intervention with Educational Robotics. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 18, 139-152. https://doi.org/10.28945/4442 (*)

Esteve-Mon, F.M., Llopis-Nebot, M.A., & Adell-Segura, J. (2020a). Digital Teaching Competence of University Teachers: A Systematic Review of the Literature. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologías del Aprendizaje, 15(4), 399-406. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2020.3033225

Esteve-Mon, F.M., Llopis, M.A., & Adell-Segura, J. (2020b). Digital competence and computational thinking of student teachers. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(02), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i02.11588 (*)

European Commission (2017). Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu). https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/digcompedu_en

Falcó Boudet, J.M. (2017). Evaluación de la competencia digital docente en la Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 19(4), 73-83. https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2017.19.4.1359 (*)

Farias-Gaytan, S., Aguaded, I., & Ramirez-Montoya, M.S. (2022). Transformation and digital literacy: Systematic literature mapping. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 1417-1437 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10624-x

Fernández-Batanero, J.M., Román-Graván, P., & Montenegro Rueda, M., López- Meneses, E., & Fernández-Cerero, J. (2021). Digital Teaching Competence in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences, 11 (689). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110689

Fernández-Luque, A.M., Ramírez-Montoya, M.S., & Cordón-García, J.A. (2021). Training in digital competencies for health professionals: systematic mapping (2015-2019). Profesional de la información, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2021.mar.13

Flores-Lueg, C., & Roig-Vila, R. (2019). Factores personales que inciden en la autovaloración de futuros maestros sobre la dimensión pedagógica del uso de TIC. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación Superior, 10(27), 151-171. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.20072872e.2019.27.345 (*)

Frolova, E.V., Rogach, O.V., & Ryabova, T.M. (2020). Digitalization of Education in Modern Scientific Discourse: New trends and risk analysis. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 9, 313-336. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2020.2.313

Gallego-Arrufat, M., Torres-Hernández, N., & Pessoa, T. (2019). Competence of future teachers in the digital security area. Comunicar, 61, 57-67. https://doi.org/10.3916/C61-2019-05 (*)

García-Ruiz, R., & Pérez Escoda, A. (2021). La competencia digital docente como clave para fortalecer el uso responsable de Internet. Campus Virtuales 10(1), 59-71. http://uajournals.com/ojs/index.php/campusvirtuales/article/view/781 (*)

García-Vandewalle García, J.M., García-Carmona, M., Trujillo Torres, J.M., & Moya Fernández, P. (2021). Analysis of digital competence of educators (DigCompEdu) in teacher trainees: the context of Melilla, Spain. Technology, Knowedge and Learning, 2131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09546-x (*)

Garzón Artacho, E., Martínez, T.S., Ortega Martín, J.L., Marín Marín, J.A., & Gómez García, G. (2020). Teacher training in lifelong learning—The importance of digital competence in the encouragement of teaching innovation. Sustainability, 12, 2852. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072852 (*)

Gisbert Cervera, M., González Martínez, J., & Esteve Mon, F. M. (2016). Competencia digital y competencia digital docente: una panorámica sobre el estado de la cuestión. Revista Interuniversitaria de Investigación en Tecnología Educativa, 0, 74-83. https://doi.org/10.6018/riite2016/257631

Gómez-Trigueros, I. M., Ponsoda López de Atalaya, S., & Díez Ros, R. (2021). Towards an insertion of technologies: The need to train in digital teaching competence. International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 10(3), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.17583/rimcis.8652 (*)

Guillen-Gamez, F.D., & Mayorga-Fernandez, M.J. (2020). Prediction of factors that affect the knowledge and use higher education professors from Spain make of ICT resources to teach, evaluate and research: A study with research methods in educational technology. Education Sciences, 10(10), 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100276 (*)

Guillén-Gámez, F.D., & Mayorga-Fernandez, M.J. (2020). Prediction of factors that affect the Knowledge and use Higher Education Professors from Spain Make of ICT resources to teach, evaluate and research: A study with research methods in educational technology. Education Sciences, 10(10), 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100276

Gudmundsdottir, G.B., & Hatlevik, O.E. (2018). Newly qualified teachers’ professional digital competence: Implications for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 214-231. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1416085

Gudmundsdottir, G.B., Hernandez Gasso, H., Colomer Rubio, J.C., & Hatlevik, O.E. (2020). Student teachers’ responsible use of ICT: Examining two samples in Spain and Norway. Computers & Education, 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103877 (*)

Hämäläinen, R., Nissinen, K., Mannonen, J., Lämsa, J., Leino, K., & Taajamo, M. (2021). Understanding teaching professionals’ digital competence: What do PIAAC and TALIS reveal about technology-related skills, attitudes, and knowledge? Computers in Human Behavior, 117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106672 (*)

Heuling, L.S., Wild, S., & Vest, A. (2021). Digital competences of prospective engineers and science teachers: A latent profile and correspondence analysis. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IJEMST), 9(4), 760-782. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1831 (*)

Hossein-Mohand, H., Trujillo-Torres, J.M., Gómez-García, M., Hossein-Mohand, H., & Campos-Soto, A. (2021). Analysis of the use and integration of the flipped learning model, project-based learning, and gamification methodologies by secondary school mathematics teachers. Sustainability, 13(5), 2606. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052606 (*)

INTEF. (2017). Marco común de la competencia digital docente. https://bit.ly/35SyPDi

Jiménez-Hernández, D., González-Calatayud, V., Torres-Soto, A., Mayoral, A.M., & Morales, J. (2020). Digital competence of future secondary school teachers: Differences according to gender, age, and branch of knowledge. Sustainablity, 12(22), 9473. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229473 (*)

Jorge-Vázquez, J., Náñez Alonso, S.L., Fierro Saltos, W.R., & Pacheco Mendoza, S. (2021). Assessment of digital competencies of university faculty and their conditioning factors: Case study in a technological adoption context. Education Science, 11(10), 637. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100637 (*)

Karunaweera, A., & Lee, K.W. (2021). Measuring digital competence: an exploratory study mapping digital competence profiles of Sri Lankan English language teachers. Asian Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 36(1), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2021.36.1.6 (*)

Kitchenham, B., Pretorius, R., Budgen, D., Brereton, O. P., Turner, M., Niazi, M., & Linkman, S. (2010). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering–a tertiary study. Information and software technology, 52(8), 792-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006

Lázaro Cantabrana, J.L., Usart Rodriguez, M., & Gisbert Cervera, M. (2019). Assessing teacher digital competence: the construction of an Instrument for measuring the knowledge of pre-service teachers. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 8(1), 73-78. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2019.1.370 (*)

Llopis Nebot, M.A., Vinoles Cosentino, V., Esteve-Mon, F.M., & Adell Segura, J. (2021). Diagnostic and educational self-assessment of the digital competence of university teachers. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 16(3-4), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2021-03-04-03 (*)

Maiier, N., & Koval, T. (2021). How to develop digital competence in pre-service FL teachers at University level. Advanced Education, 8(18), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.227639 (*)

Marcano, B., Íñigo, V., & Sánchez Ramírez, J.M. (2020). Validación de rúbrica para evaluación de e-actividades diseñadas para el logro de competencias digitales docentes. Apuntes Universitarios, 10(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.17162/au.v10i2.451 (*)

Marín Suelves, D., Vidal Esteve, M.I., Peirats Chacón, J., & San Martín Alonso, A. (2019). Competencia digital transversal en la formación del profesorado, análisis de una experiencia. INNOEDUCA. International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 5(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.24310/innoeduca.2019.v5i1.4890 (*)

McGarr, O., & McDonagh, A. (2020). Exploring the digital competence of pre-service teachers on entry onto an initial teacher education programme in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 40(1), 115-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2020.1800501 (*)

Medina-Garcia, M., Higueras-Rodriguez, L., Garcia-Vita, M.M., & Dona-Toledo, L. (2021). ICT, disability, and motivation: Validation of a measurement scale and consequence model for inclusive digital knowledge. International Journal Environment Research and Public Health, 18(13), 6770. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136770 (*)

Melash, V.D., Molodychenki, V.V., Huz, V.V., Varenychenko, A.B., & Kirsanova, S.S. (2020). Modernization of education programs and formation of digital competences of future primary school teachers. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(7), 377-386. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n7p377

Miguel-Revilla, D., Martínez-Ferreira, J. M., & Sánchez-Agustí, M. (2020). Assessing the digital competence of educators in social studies: An analysis in initial teacher training using the TPACK-21 model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5281 (*)

Moreno-Guerrero, A., Miaja-Chippirraz, N., Bueno-Pedrero, A., & Borrego-Otero, L. (2020). The information and information literacy area of the digital teaching competence. Revista Electrónica Educare, 24(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.24-3.25 (*)

Muñoz F. J. R.,& Ruiz-Domínguez, M. D. M. (2021). Acompetência digital dos professores de literatura no ensino médio na Espanha. Texto Livre, Belo Horizaonte-MG, 14(3), e31351, https://doi/org10.35699/1983-3652.2021.31351 (*)

Muñoz Pérez, E., & Cubo Delgado, S. (2019). Competencia digital, formación y actitud del profesorado de educación especial hacia las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC). Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 23(1), 209-241. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado. v23i1.9151 (*)

Myyry, L., Kallunki, V., Katajavuori, N., Repo, S., Tuononen, T., Anttila, H., Kinnunen, P., Haarala-Muhonen, A., & Pyoeraelae, E. (2022). COVID-19 accelerating academic teachers’ digital competence in distance teaching. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.770094 (*)

Napal Fraile, M., Peñalva-Vélez, A., & Mendióroz Lacambra, A.M. (2018). Development of dDigital competence in secondary education teachers’ training. Education Science, 8(3), 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030104 (*)

Palau Martín, R.F., Usart, M., & Ucar Camicero, J. (2019). La competencia digital de los docentes de los conservatorios. Estudio de autopercepción en España. Revista Electrónica LEEME, 44, 24-41. https://doi.org/10.7203/LEEME.44.1563 (*)

Parlamento Europeo (2016). Competencias clave para el aprendizaje permanente -Un marco de referencia europeo. https://bit.ly/3t83wx7

Paz Saavedra, L., Gisbert Cervera, M., & Usart Rodríguez, M. (2022). Competencia digital docente, actitud y uso de tecnologías digitales por parte de profesores universitarios. Pixel-Bit, 63, 93-130. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.91652 (*)

Pérez-Escoda, A., García-Ruiz, R., & Aguaded, I. (2019). Dimensions of digital literacy based on five models of development. Cultura y Educación, 31(2), 232-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2019.1603274

Pérez García, A., & Hernández-Sánchez, A.M. (2020). Efectos del programa affective e-learning en el desarrollo de la competencia digital en estudiantes del Grado en Educación Primaria. Educatio Siglo XXI, 38, 129–150. https://doi.org/10.6018/educatio.416431 (*)

Pinto-Santos, A.R., Garcias, A.P., & Garcias, A.P. (2022). Development of teaching digital competence in initial teacher training: A systematic review. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 14(1), 01–15. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v14i1.6250

Pongsakdi, N., Kortelainen, A., & Veermans, M. (2021). The impact of digital pedagogy training on in-service teachers’ attitudes towards digital technologies. Education and Information Technology, 26, 5041–5054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10439-w (*)

Prieto-Ballester, J.M., Revuelta-Dominguez, F.I., & Pedrera-Rodriguez, M.I. (2021). Secondary school teachers self-perception of digital teaching competence in Spain following COVID-19 confinement. Education Sciences, 11(8), 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080407 (*)

Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators. DigCompEdu. European Commission, Joint Research Centre. https://doi.org/10.2760/178382

Rodríguez-García, A.M., Fuentes Cabrera, A., & Moreno Guerrero, A.J. (2019). Competencia digital docente para la búsqueda, selección, evaluación y almacenamiento de la información. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 33(3). https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v33i3.73200 (*)

Romero-Garcia, C., Sacristan San Cristobal, M., Buzon-Garcia, O., & Navarro Asencio, E. (2020). Evaluation of a program for the improvement of learning and digital competence in future teachers utilizing active methodologies. Estudios sobre Educación, 39, 179-205. https://doi.org/10.15581/004.39.179-205 (*)

Rossi Cordero, A.S., & Barajas Frutos, M. (2018). Competencia digital e innovación pedagógica: Desafíos y oportunidades. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 22(3), 317-339. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v22i3.8004 (*)

Ruiz Cabezas, A., Medina Domínguez, M., Pérez Navío, E., & Medina Rivilla, A. (2020). University teachers’ training: the digital competence. Pixel-Bit, 58, 181-215. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.74676 (*)

Sales, D., Cuevas-Cerveró, A., & Gómez-Hernández, J.A. (2020). Perspectives on the information and digital competence of Social Sciences students and faculty before and during lockdown due to Covid-19. Profesional de la Información, 29(4), e290423. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.jul.23 (*)

Saltos-Rivas, R., Novoa-Hernández, P., & Serrano Rodríguez, R. (2021). On the quality of quantitative instruments to measure digital competence in higher education: A systematic mapping study. PLoS ONE, 16(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0257344

Santos, C.C., Pedro, N.S.G., & Mattar, J. (2021). Assessment of the proficiency level in digital competences of higher education professors in Portugal. Educação, 46(1), e63/1–37. https://doi.org/10.5902/1984644461414 (*)

Sillat, L.H., Tammets, K., & Laanpere, M. (2021). Digital competence assessment methods in higher education: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 11(402). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080402

Silva, J., Morales, M.J., Lázaro-Cantabrana, J.L., Gisbert, M., Miranda, P., Rivoir, A., & Onetto, A. (2019b). Digital teaching competence in initial training: Case studies from Chile and Uruguay. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(93). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3822 (*)

Silva, J., Usart, M., & Lázaro-Cantabrana, J. (2019a). Teacher’s digital competence among final year Pedagogy students in Chile and Uruguay. Comunicar, 61, 33- 43. https://doi.org/10.3916/C61-2019-03 (*)

Sorochinsky, M. A. (2021). Digital competence of teachers and students in Yakutia: problems and prospects of e-learning during the pandemic. Educação, 46(1), e99/1–16. https://doi.org/10.5902/1984644466423 (*)

Suárez Guerrero, C., Ros Garrido, A., & Lizandra, J. (2021). Aproximación a la competencia digital docente en la formación profesional. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 21(67). https://doi.org/10.6018/red.431821 (*)

Tomczyk, L. (2021). Declared and real level of digital skills of future teaching staff. Education Sciences, 11(10), 619. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100619 (*)

Tomczyk, Ł., Jáuregui, V.C., de La Higuera Amato, C.A., Muñoz, D., Arteaga, M., Oyelere, S.S., Akyar, O.Y, & Porta, M. (2021). Are teachers techno-optimists or techno-pessimists? A pilot comparative among teachers in Bolivia, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, Poland, Turkey, and Uruguay. Education and Information Technology, 26, 2715–2741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10380-4 (*)

Torres Barzabal, M.L., Martínez Gimeno, A., Jaén Martínez, A., & Hermosilla Rodríguez, J.M. (2022). La percepción del profesorado de la Universidad Pablo de Olavide sobre su competencia digital docente. Pixel-Bit, 63, 35-64. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.91943 (*)

Tourón, J., Martín, D., Navarro, E., Pradas, S., & Íñigo, V. (2018). Construct validation of a questionnaire to measure teachers’ digital competence (TDC). Revista Española de Pedagogía, 76(269), 25-54. https://doi.org/10.22550/REP76-1-2018-02 (*)

Trujillo-Torres, J.M., Gómez-García, G., Navas-Parejo, M.R., & Soler-Costa, R. (2020). The development of information literacy in early childhood education teachers. A study from the perspective of the education center’s character. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 10(1), 47-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.728 (*)

Usart Rodriguez, M., Lazaro Cantabrana, J.L., & Gisbert Cervera, M. (2021). Validación de una herramienta para autoevaluar la competencia digital docente. Educación XX1, 24(1), 353-373. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.27080 (*)

Viñoles-Cosentino, V., Esteve-Mon, F. M., Llopis-Nebot, M. Á., & Adell-Segura, J. (2021). Validación de una plataforma de evaluación formativa de la competencia digital docente en tiempos de Covid-19. RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 24(2), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.24.2.29102 (*)

Yazon, A., Ang-Manaig, K., Buama., C.A.C., & Tesoro, J.F.B. (2019). Digital literacy, digital competence and research productivity of educators. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(8), 1734 - 1743. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070812 (*)

Yepes-Núñez, J.J., Urrútica, G., Romero-García, M., & Alonso-Fernández, S. (2021). Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guíactualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Revista Española de Cardiología. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016

Zhao, Y., Pinto Llorente, A.M., Sánchez Gómez, M.C., & Zhao, L. (2021). The impact of gender and years of teaching experience on college teachers’ digital competence: An empirical study on teachers in Gansu Agricultural University. Sustainability, 13, 4163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084163 (*)