INTRODUCTION

In a networked society, where technology transcends borders and transforms cultures and identities (Castells, 2006), digital competence is key to processes of educational transformation (Fernández-Enguita, et al., 2023). In particular, there is a growing interest in the digital competence of university teachers, as evidenced by the increase in research and systematic literature reviews on this phenomenon in recent years (Ferrando-Rodriguez et al., 2022; Perdomo et al., 2020; Viñoles-Consentino et al., 2022). Most studies show that the digital competence of university teachers is analysed on the basis of self-perception, identifying an intermediate level of digital competence and showing differences according to specific skills and personal and professional variables. The research also highlights the need for further research on this topic, to vary research designs and to promote institutional strategies that favour the digital transformation of teaching and learning processes in universities.

Without neglecting the impact that the pandemic caused by COVID-19 continues to have on the current educational scenario (Sá & Serpa, 2020), many research teams continue to address issues related to competences in universities (Villa, 2020), to the digital competence of teachers in general (Cuevas et al., 2022; Sánchez et al., 2020) and to the digital competence of university teachers in particular (Buils et al., 2021; Cabero-Almenara et al., 2021; Gabarda, Ferrando-Rodríguez & Romero, 2023; Guillén-Gámez et al, 2021; Mengual, et al., 2016; Mercader & Durán-Bellonch, 2021; Nebot, et al., 2021; Prendes, 2010;Prendes et al., 2018; Sánchez et al., 2021; Torres et al., 2022).

Thus, over the last two decades or so, studies have been developed that attempt to define new roles and functions for university teachers based on the incursion of educational technologies into the classroom. Well-known authors in this field have already pointed out that the role of the teacher should go beyond the transmission of content. Teachers must adapt the content to the context of the students, thus becoming designers and creators of the curriculum (Adell, 2006). They must be programmers, directors and coordinators of learning with interactive media ( Tejada, 1999), creators and mediators of learning experiences (Pothier, 2001), managers of learning resources, and facilitators in the use of tools (Salinas, 2004). In short, they have to adapt, produce and evaluate materials from different media (Cebrián, 2016).

Recently, Buils et al. (2023) synthesised previous reviews to propose a reference framework of 12 competencies related to the role of university teachers, based on the models of teaching competencies proposed by Gallent (2015), Villa and García (2006) and Zabalza (2010): Planning competence, Learning management competence, Disciplinary knowledge competence, Communication competence, Pedagogical leadership competence, Learning assessment competence, Transversal digital competence, Tutoring competence, Psycho-pedagogical competence, Teaching collegiality competence, Personal development competence, and Competence to review and improve teaching practice.

Based on this proposal and due to the nature of this work, we will focus on competences related to the use of ICTs (Villa & García, 2006), technological competences (Gallent, 2015) and those related to the handling of new technologies, as well as the selection and preparation of digital content by university teachers, issues that Zabalza already pointed out more than a decade ago.

Recognising these skills implies viewing university teachers as professionals who not only have up-to-date knowledge of advances in educational technology, but who are also able to integrate these technologies in a relevant and effective way into their daily teaching practice. Thus, an adequate selection of content that ensures up-to-date, high-quality teaching, and where the use of educational technologies promotes opportunities to transform university teaching (Zabalza, 2010), implies that teachers must go beyond the selection and structuring of disciplinary content: teachers must integrate into their practice not only a deep knowledge of the content, but also the best way to teach it through the integration of technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

This transformation of the teaching role makes teachers responsible for both designing learning opportunities and creating the environment for students to have a meaningful learning experience that integrates technology, pedagogy and disciplinary knowledge (Cejas et al., 2016).

Teachers' technological competence is therefore not merely instrumental, but involves reflection and research from and into their own professional practice.

In this way, teachers need to be experts in digital pedagogical content and enriched personal and organisational learning environments, generating and managing new pedagogical practices (Esteve-Mon et al., 2018), integrating the didactic perspective over a purely technological one in pedagogical innovations (Gisbert & Lázaro, 2015).

This improves the use of the communicative potential and access to information offered by educational technologies (Rodríguez-Hoyos et al., 2021), planning an innovative teaching-learning process that includes, among other skills, the creation of digital content that enables students to learn more autonomously (Villarroel & Stuardo, 2022).

Given that previous studies (Ferrando-Rodríguez et al., 2023a; Ferrando-Rodríguez et al., 2023b) have already analysed the level of Digital Teaching Competence (DTC) for the creation of digital content among university teachers and identified some of the variables that influence its development (such as academic level, degree, field of knowledge, technological training, age, gender, training and previous teaching experience), this work focuses on the level of self-perceived digital competence of university teachers depending on whether they teach in a private or public university.

It will also explore whether the academic category or location of the university influences teachers' digital competence.

METHOD

This study followed a quantitative research methodology. The self-perceived level of digital competence of university teachers in creating digital educational content was objectively measured.

Procedure

In order to carry out this study, the four phases detailed in Figure 1 were carried out.

Instrument

The adaptation of the DigCompEdu Check-In questionnaire (Cabero-Almenara & Palacios-Rodríguez, 2020) was used for data collection. This instrument measures the development of digital competence in teaching, as suggested by the DigCompEdu framework proposed by Redecker and Punie (2017), which includes 22 items integrated in six competence areas: professional engagement, digital resources, digital pedagogy, assessment and feedback, student empowerment, and promotion of student digital competence.

Sample

A non-probabilistic convenience sampling technique was used to obtain as many participants as possible. The sample consisted of 770 teachers with teaching qualifications in public and private universities in Spain, of whom 37.4% were men and 61.3% women.

The average age was 45.1 ± 10.3 years. In order to calculate the statistical power of the sample, we performed an analysis with G*Power 3.1 for a one-factor fixed effect ANOVA test with 17 groups (the autonomous communities) for an effect size f(V) = 0.18 and a power 1-β = 0.90, resulting in a sample of 765 teachers (Figure 2).

All participants were of legal age and gave informed consent (included in the questionnaire) for voluntary and anonymous participation in the study.

Variables

The dependent variables were the following:

• Competence in Digital Content Creation (DCC_5): 5 levels of response were contemplated, based on the 5 levels of digital competence. The formula applied was DCC_6= (1+(CDCCo-1) *5/4) for the conversion to the DCC variable, which is the DCC_5 but on a base of 6.
• Initial Perception of Digital Competence (Initial_PC): This variable is the participants' self-score prior to completing the questionnaire.
• Final Perception of Digital Competence (Final_PC): This variable was measured after the completion of the questionnaire.
• Perceived Digital Competence: This variable refers both Initial_PC and Final_PC
• Effect of the questionnaire: This is the comparison between the initial and final perception scores (Initial_PC vs Final_PC).
• Adjustments in the perception of digital competence (PDC_Objectivity): This is the comparison between the final perception of competence and the CDCC (Final_PC vs DCC_6).

The independent variables were the type of university, the academic category and the autonomous community of the university. The following table shows the independent variables and the categories of analysis.

Data analysis

We used SPSS 28.0 software (IBM, Chicago, USA) for the quantitative analyses. The questionnaire showed high reliability, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.894 (Cohen, 2013).

Descriptive statistics such as mean, median and interquartile range were used. Before calculating the descriptive statistics, K-S tests for normality and Levene's test for homogeneity of variances were performed.

To compare the DCC according to the academic category of the teaching staff and the Autonomous Community of the university, ANOVA tests were performed, followed by pairwise comparisons with Tukey's correction for significance. η2p as the effect size statistic for ANOVA was used, with values greater than 0.13 being considered a large effect (Richard et al., 2003).

To compare DCC between university types, an independent samples t-test was performed using Cohen's d as the effect size statistic - values between 0 and 0.19 were considered a minimal effect, between 0.20 and 0.49 a small effect, between 0.5 and 0.79 a moderate effect, between 0.80 and 1.29 a large effect, and greater than 1.29 a very large effect (Cohen, 2013).

Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to compare the initial and final perceived competence as a function of the academic category of the teaching staff and the Autonomous Community of the university.

To compare the initial and final PDC according to the type of university, a Mann-Whitney U test was performed.

To compare the effect of the completion of the questionnaire on PDC, Wilcoxon tests between Initial_PC and Final_PC were performed. To compare the objectivity of the PDC, Wilcoxon tests between Initial_PC and DCC were performed. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The following results are derived from the analysis of the data obtained from the questions posed in the introductory section of this study:

Type of University

The type of university had a significant effect on DCC and PDC (Perception of Digital Competence) (Figure 3, left), such that teachers from private universities had significantly higher DCC (t ₇₆₈=-5.38; p<.001; d=.87), Initial_PC (U=55962 Z=-2.59; p=.010) and Final_PC (U=57340; Z=-2.08; p=.038) scores. On the other hand, completion of the questionnaire did not have a significant effect on PDC, as there was no significant difference between initial and final PDC in any of the university types. However, there was a discrepancy in PDC_Objectivity, as both groups underestimated their DCC, and their Final_PC was significantly lower than their actual DCC (Public: Z=-11.2; p<.001 and Private: Z=-9.9; p<.001) (Figure 3 right).

Academic status of teaching staff

The academic category of the lecturer did not have a significant weight on the DCC_6 (F _7.762=.826; p=.566; η²=0), although it was observed that the lecturers with the highest DCC_6 were University Professors, while those with the lowest DCC_6 were Full University Professors. The same trend was observed for PDC, although there were no significant differences for either Initial_PC (H₇=1.95; p=.963) or Final_PC (H₇=3.84; p=.798) (Table 2).

The completion of the questionnaire did not affect the PDC either, as no significant differences were found between Initial_PC and Final_PC according to the academic categories of the teachers. However, there was a discrepancy in the PDC objectivity in some academic categories, which underestimated their DCC compared to their Final_PC. This is the case for University professors (Z=-5.33; p<.001), Tenure-track 2 professors (Z=-7.56; p<.001), Tenure-track 1 professors (Z=-5.74; p<.001), Trainee lecturers (Z=-3.62; p<.001), Adjunct professors (Z=-7.72; p<.001) and Other categories (Z=-5.62; p<.001). Full university professors and TRSs also underestimated their DCC, but not significantly.

University Autonomous Community

The Autonomous Community of the university had a significant influence on the DCC F _2.752=2.31; p=.002; η²=.047, with university teachers from La Rioja registering a significantly higher DCC than those from Madrid, Catalonia, Castile and León, Castilla–La Mancha, the Basque Country and Andalusia. The same trend was observed in the PDC comparisons, where La Rioja, teachers working online in regional or national institutions, Galicia and Navarre recorded higher PDC, while the communities with the lowest PDC were Extremadura, the Basque Country and Castilla–La Mancha. However, there were no significant differences in the PDC comparisons for either Initial_PC (H ₁₅=21.8; p=.102) or Final_PC (H₁₅=24.8; p=.053).

The completion of the questionnaire had no effect on PDC, as there were no significant differences between IPC and FPC in any of the Autonomous Communities. However, there was an imbalance in PDC objectivity among the teachers from some Autonomous Communities. The online teachers at national or Autonomous Community level group underestimated their DCC in relation to their Final_PC (Z=-2.77; p=.006), as did teachers from Andalusia (Z=-4.07; p<.001), Cantabria (Z=-2.48; p=.013), Castilla–La Mancha (Z=-4.0; p<.001), Castile and León (Z=-5.48; p<.001), Catalonia (Z=-5.03; p<.001), Valencian Community (Z=-5.57; p<.001), Extremadura (Z=-2.80; p=.005), Galicia (Z=-3.47; p<.001), Balearic Islands (Z=-2.98; p=.003), La Rioja (Z=-2.82; p=.005), Madrid (Z=-6.87; p<.001), Murcia (Z=-2.43; p=.015) and the Basque Country (Z=-2.29; p=.022). Teachers from Aragón, Canary Islands and Navarre also underestimated their DCC, but not significantly.

DISCUSSION

As a result of our interest in identifying the level of digital competence in terms of digital content creation among university teachers, in a previous study we analysed variables such as gender, age and previous training or experience as determinants of the level of performance (Ferrando-Rodríguez et al., 2023b). In these investigations, we found that teachers perceived themselves as having an intermediate level of competence and that the variables studied conditioned the level of competence. The results confirm the findings of previous studies such as that of Cabero-Almenara et al. (2020), whose results show that the level is moderate for the areas of digital pedagogy and digital resources.

Similarly, previous research (Ferrando-Rodríguez et al., 2023a) has analysed the level of digital teaching competence in content creation by university teachers, based on other variables such as academic level, degree, field of knowledge, technological training or the match between perceived and actual competence. These studies showed the relationship between the use of digital content and the methodology used as a pedagogical support, as well as the importance of the technological training received when taking on the role of prosumer of digital content by university teachers.

Based on these studies and on a recent study that showed significant differences in the creation of content by teachers who perform their role online or in settings other than face-to-face education (Ferrando-Rodríguez et al., 2024), this paper has tried to broaden the vision of the phenomenon under study by exploring whether aspects such as the ownership of the university where teachers provide their services, their academic category or the geographical location of the universities can have an impact on the level of self-perceived digital competence.

Thus, in relation to the first variable of analysis, we found that the type of university had a significant influence on DCC and PDC. Teachers in private universities had significantly higher DC scores for content creation than teachers in public universities. It is also clear that, far from having an idealised view of their competences (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2020), the participants underestimated their own competences, which was not the case in other studies focusing on the digital competences of future teachers (Gabarda, Marín-Suelves et al., 2023; Marín-Suelves et al., 2022).

The results of the second variable examined showed that although there were differences in the level of self-perceived digital competence according to category (for example, the teachers with the highest DCC were university professors and those with the lowest were full professors), there was no significant influence on DCC. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between IPC and FPC in any academic category.

The variable that showed the most significant differences in teachers' competence in content creation was the Autonomous Community in which they work. A higher DCC was recorded in the universities of La Rioja than in those of Madrid, Catalonia, Castile and León, Castilla–La Mancha, the Basque Country and Andalusia. In the PDC comparisons, the same line was observed, with La Rioja and the group of lecturers from national or regional online universities, Galicia and Navarre recording higher PDC compared to Extremadura, the Basque Country and Castilla–La Mancha, where the lowest PDC were recorded. However, none of the Autonomous Communities showed significant differences between IPC and FPC.

Thus, specifically in this variable, we confirm that context is another element to take into account when studying teachers' digital competence. In this sense, Paz and Gisbert (2023), in a study carried out in a Colombian university, point out that although more than half of the teachers in the sample have an intermediate level of digital competence that allows them to perform adequately in the use of digital technologies in their professional work, the results are conditioned by the context. Regardless of the location of the university where the teachers work, each Autonomous Community should guarantee the necessary resources so that teachers can be trained in the necessary digital competences (Mora et al., 2022). Therefore, and in line with Moreira et al. (2023), we consider it necessary to promote strategies that favour training plans adapted to the specificities of the universities and to the profile of the teaching staff, taking into account their experience and commitment. Accordingly, and following Sánchez-Tarazaga (2016), we must "conceive the teaching profile within a framework that includes the professional competences necessary to face the challenges of the new context" (p. 44), as this can contribute to the development of the teaching profession. In any case, these initiatives could lead to a greater use and appropriation of digital technologies in education (Paz & Gisbert, 2023), which could also facilitate a greater correspondence between the level of digital competence of teachers and a better use of their innovative practices in the classroom (López, Pozo, Fuentes, & Romero, 2019).

Although this study provides information on the level of digital competence of university teachers for content creation based on university type and location, and academic category of the educators, we believe that the main limitation lies in the consideration of self-perception rather than a standardised test to measure the actual digital competence of teachers. Another limitation comes from the nature of the study and the configuration of the sample, which is limited to university teachers who teach in programmes that qualify students to become teachers. Thus, extending the characteristics of the participants to teachers of other degree programmes could provide a more global view of the phenomenon under study. In this sense, we agree with Cisneros-Barahona et al. (2024) that digital competence in teaching is fundamental in university education, as it goes hand in hand with the professional development and digital literacy of students. On the other hand, we believe that it is important to go beyond quantitative data and delve, from a more qualitative perspective, into the type of digital content generated by university teachers. All these questions would undoubtedly provide data of interest to the scientific community in general and the educational community in particular.

It is important to stress the importance of the continuous updating and training of university teachers as producers of digital educational content (Ferrando-Rodriguez et al., 2024), which involves not only the knowledge and use of multimedia presentations to support teaching, but also the integration of other alternatives such as learning analytics, extended reality and even artificial intelligence ( Coll et al., 2023). The commitment to continuous teacher training in digital competence and the pedagogical use of these technologies (Machuca et al., 2023) must be constant if we want to make progress not only in the design of work and learning spaces that promote new ways of teaching and learning, but also to allow for greater teacher empowerment and training in all areas, especially the more complex ones (Martín-Párraga et al., 2023).

In any case, and in line with the contributions already made by González and Rincón (2013), it is essential to consolidate a process of pedagogical transformation in higher education that emphasises both the critical capacity of teachers and the incorporation of technologies, so that teachers can assume the role of empowered prosumers. The DigCompEdu framework can serve as a reference for the digital transformation of education, helping higher education institutions to visualise, design and structure this transformation (Castañeda et al., 2023). In line with these ideas, we would also like to highlight the need to evaluate the initial training of students who are being trained to become teachers, so that "on the basis of these results, training plans can be designed and implemented to remedy the shortcomings identified" (Silva et al., 2022, p.303).

This will require a real commitment on the part of universities to support the work of teaching staff, redefining professional competences that integrate digital competence into teaching (Prendes et al., 2018) in an innovative and sustainable way (Sánchez-Tarazaga et al., 2021). At the level of digital content creation, and based on the results obtained by the team of López, Pozo, & Alonso (2019), this could lead to a real pedagogical transformation that goes beyond the use of digital resources as mere support for face-to-face sessions.

It will therefore be necessary for teachers to continue to develop their ability to select, adapt, create, redesign and/or use digital educational content in favour of a better learning experience for students (Rodríguez et al., 2022), thus helping students to apply tools and resources in their learning, especially in relation to content production (Grizzle et al., 2023). This requires the transversal development of digital teaching competences in each subject of initial teacher education curricula (Marín-Suelves et al., 2019).

Finally, given the proliferation of artificial intelligence in university classrooms, it is important that teachers are able to teach how to use AI systems in a responsible, safe and ethical manner (García, 2024). But beyond this fundamental objective, and in line with the contributions of García-Ruiz et al. (2023), studying the impact of this competence is essential for improving university teaching practices.

REFERENCES

Adell, J. (2006). Tendencias en educación en la sociedad de las tecnologías de la información. EDUTEC. Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa,(7), a007. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.1997.7.570

Buils, S., Arroyo-Ainsa, P., Sánchez-Tarazaga, L., & Esteve-Mon, F. (2023). Competencias docentes para el desarrollo profesional en la universidad actual. Journal of Supranational Policies of Education, (17), 76-102. https://doi.org/10.15366/jospoe2023.17.005

Buils, S., Esteve-Mon, F. M., Sánchez-Tarazaga, L., & Arroyo-Ainsa, P. (2021). Las competencias docentes en la universidad actual: análisis del perfil docente desde una visión digital. In M. Proyetti, F. Bica loonelli, D. Mazzoni, G. Musso, J. Perri, & R. Veiga (Coords.), Convergencia entre educación y tecnología: hacia un nuevo paradigma (pp. 766-770). Eudeba.

Cabero, J., Barroso, J., Rodriguez, M., & Palacios, A. (2020). La Competencia Digital Docente. El caso de las universidades andaluzas. Aula Abierta, 49(4), 363-375. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.49.4.2020.363-372

Cabero-Almenara, J., Barroso-Osuna, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2021). The teaching digital competence of health sciences teachers. A study at Andalusian Universities (Spain). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052552

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

Castañeda, L., Viñoles-Cosentino, V., Postigo-Fuentes, A. Y., Herrero, C., & Cachia, R., (2023). Strategic Approaches to RegionalTransformation of Digital Education. Publications Office of the European Union.

Castells, M. (2006). The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Alianza Editorial.

Cebrián De La Serna, M. (2016). Análisis, prospectiva y descripción de las nuevas competencias que necesitan las instituciones educativas y los profesores para adaptarse a la sociedad de la información. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, (20), 73-80.

Cejas, R., Navío, A., & Barroso, J. (2016). Las competencias del profesorado universitario desde el modelo TPACK (conocimiento tecnológico y pedagógico del contenido). Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, (49), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2016.i49.07

Cisneros-Barahona, A. S., Marqués-Molías, L., Samaniego-Erazo, G. N., & Mejía-Granizo, C. M. (2024). Evaluación de la competencia digital docente. Un análisis que integra las perspectivas descriptiva, inferencial y multivariada. RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 27(2), 185-221. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.27.2.39122

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587

Coll, C., Díaz, F., Engel, A., & Salinas, J. (2023). Evidencias de aprendizaje en prácticas educativas mediadas por tecnologías digitales. RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia,26(2), 9-25. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.26.2.37293

Cuevas, N., Gabarda, C., Rodríguez, A., & Cívico, A. (2022). Tecnología y educación superior en tiempos de pandemia: revisión de la literatura. Hachetetepé. Revista científica en Educación y Comunicación, (24), 1-18.https://doi.org/10.25267/Hachetetepe.2022.i24.1105

Esteve-Mon, F., Castañeda, L., & Adell-Segura, J. (2018). Un modelo holístico de competencia docente para el mundo digital. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 91, 105-116. https://bit.ly/39tVmYG

Fernández-Enguita, M., García, M., Vaillant, D., & Zubillaga, A. (2023). Competencia digital docente para la transformación educativa.Marco del Programa Regional de Transformación Educativa Digital de la Dirección General de Educación y Formación Profesional. Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura.

Ferrando-Rodríguez, M. de L., Gabarda, V., Marín-Suelves, D., & Ramón-Llin, J. (2024). Diagnóstico del nivel de competencia digital autopercibido del profesorado universitario para la creación de contenidos: incidencia de la modalidad de enseñanza. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía, 76(2), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.13042/Bordon.2024.98836

Ferrando-Rodríguez, L., Gabarda, V., Marín-Suelves, D., & Ramón-Llin, J. (2023a). ¿Crea contenidos digitales el profesorado universitario? Un diseño mixto de investigación. [Do university teacher create digital content? Mixed research design]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 66, 137-172. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.96309

Ferrando-Rodríguez, M. de L., Marín-Suelves, D., Gabarda, V., & Ramón-Llin, J. A. (2023b). Profesorado universitario. ¿Consumidor o productor de contenidos digitales educativos? Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 26(1), 13-25. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.543391

Ferrando-Rodríguez, M. de L., Marín-Suelves, D., & Gabarda, V. (2022). Competencia digital del profesorado universitario: revisión de la literatura. Etic@net. Revista científica electrónica de Educación y Comunicación en la Sociedad del Conocimiento,22, 296-319. https://doi.org/10.30827/eticanet.v22i2.25090

Gabarda, V., Ferrando-Rodríguez, M. L., & Romero, M. (2023). El docente como prosumidor de contenidos digitales: revisión de la literatura. REIDOCREA, 12(3), 32-41. https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.79658

Gabarda, V., Marín-Suelves, D., Vidal-Esteve, M. I., & Ramón-Llin, J. (2023). Digital Competence of Training Teachers: Results of a Teaching Innovation Project. Education Sciences,13(2), 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020162

Gallent, C. (2015). Anàlisi dels qüestionaris d'avaluació docent de les universitats públiques españoles sota el marc de l'espai europeu d'educació superior. Què avalua, en realitat, l'estudiantat? Tesis doctoral, Universitat de València. Roderic. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1768254781?pqorigsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

García, M. (2024). ¿Qué lugar ocupa la IA en las competencias digitales de los docentes? Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 549.

García-Ruiz, R., Buenestado-Fernández, M., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2023). Evaluación de la Competencia Digital Docente: instrumentos, resultados y propuestas. Revisión sistemática de la literatura. Educación XX1, 26(1), 273-301. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.33520

Gisbert, M., & Lázaro, J. L. (2015). Professional development in teacher digital competence and improving school quality from the teachers’ perspective: a case study. New Approaches in Educational Research, 4(2), 124-131. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2015.7.123

González K., & Rincón, D. (2013). El docente-prosumidor y el uso crítico de la web 2.0 en la educación superior. Sophia,(9), 79-94.

Grizzle, A., Wilson, C., Tuazon, R., Cheung, C., Lau, J., Fischer, R., Gordon, D., Akyempong, K, Singh, J., Carr, P., Stewart, K., Tayie, S., Suraj, O. Jaakkola, M., Thésée, G., Gulston, C., Andzongo, B., & Zibi, P., (2023). Ciudadanía alfabetizada en medios e información. Pensar críticamente, hacer clic sabiamente. Currículum de alfabetización mediática e informacional para educadores y estudiantes. UNESCO.

Guillén-Gámez, F., Mayorga-Fernández, M., & Contreras-Rosado, J. (2021). Incidence of gender in the digital competence of higher education teachers in research work: Analysis with descriptive and comparative methods. Education Sciences, 11(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030098

López, J., Pozo, S., Fuentes, A., & Romero, J. M. (2019). Análisis del Liderazgo Electrónico y la Competencia Digital del Profesorado de Cooperativas Educativas de Andalucía (España). Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 194-223. https://doi.org/10.17583/remie.2019.4149

López, J., Pozo, S., & Alonso, S. (2019). Profundización del profesorado en flipped learning según el nivel de competencia digital. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado. Continuación de la antigua Revista de Escuelas Normales, 33(3). https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v33i3.73283

Machuca, S., Robalino, J., Benavides, C., & Palma, D. (2023). Estudio sobre el uso efectivo de las TICs en la educación y el desarrollo de competencias digitales de los docentes. Revista Conrado, 19(S2), 355-361.

Marín-Suelves, D., Gabarda, V., & Ramón-Llin, J. (2022). Análisis de la competencia digital en el futuro profesorado a través de un diseño mixto. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 22(70), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.6018/red.523071

Marín-Suelves, D., Vidal, I., Peirats, J., & San Martín, Ángel. (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

Martín-Párraga, L., Llorente-Cejudo, C., & Barroso-Osuna, J. (2023). Variables de estudio e influencia de las TIC en el profesorado universitario: la competencia digital docente en una universidad peruana. Campus Virtuales, 12(2), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.54988/cv.2023.2.1236

Mengual, S., Roig-Vila, R., & Mira, J. (2016). Delphi study for the design and validation of a questionnaire about digital competences in higher education. International Journal of Education Technology in Higher Education, 13, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0009-y

Mercader, C., & Duran-Bellonch, M. (2021). Female higher education teachers use digital technologies more and better than they think. Digital Education Review, (40), 172-184. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2021.40.172-184

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Mora, M., Inamorato, A., Villalonga, C., Lacalle, J., Camarillo, J., Sota, J., & Ruiz, P. (2022). Competencias digitales del profesorado universitario en España: un estudio basado en los marcos europeos DigCompEdu y OpenEdu. Oficina de Publicaciones de la Unión Europea.

Moreira, J., Nunes, C., & Casanova, D. (2023). Digital Competence of Higher Education Teachers at a Distance Learning University in Portugal. Computers, 12(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12090169

Nebot, M., Cosentino, V., Esteve-Mon, F., & Adell, 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

Paz, L., & Gisbert, M. (2023). Autopercepción del profesorado universitario sobre la competencia digital docente. Educar, 59(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/educar.1614

Perdomo, B., González, O., & Barrutia, I. (2020). Competencias digitales en docentes universitarios: una revisión sistemática de la literatura. EDMETIC,9(2), 92–115. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v9i2.12796

Pothier, M. (2001). Analyse de Intégrer les nouvelles technologies de l’information: quel cadre pédagogique? Alsic, 4(1), 39-46. https://doi.org/10.4000/alsic.1903

Prendes, P. (2010). Competencias TIC para la docencia en la Universidad pública española: Indicadores y propuestas para la definición de buenas prácticas. Secretaría de Estado de Universidades e Investigación del Ministerio de Educación.

Prendes, P., Gutiérrez, I., & Martínez, F. (2018). Competencia digital: una necesidad del profesorado universitario en el siglo XXI. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 18(56), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.6018/red/56/7

Redecker, C., & Punie Y. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770

Richard, F., Bond, Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. (2003). The interpretation of factor analysis in the analysis of variance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(3), 286-300. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331

Rodríguez-Hoyos, C., Fueyo, A., & Hevia, I. (2021). Competencias digitales del profesorado para innovar en la docencia universitaria. Analizando el uso de los dispositivos móviles. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 61, 71-97. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.86305

Rodríguez, N., Lorenzo-Rial, M., & Rodríguez, U. (2022). Competencia digital docente para crear contenidos: Autopercepción del profesorado en formación didáctico-científica de Galicia (España). Educação e Pesquisa, 48, 1. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-4634202248243510

Sá, M. J., & Serpa, S. (2020). COVID-19 and the promotion of digital competences in education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(10), 4520-4528. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081020

Salinas, J. (2004). Innovación docente y uso de las TIC en la enseñanza universitaria. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 1(1),1-16

Sánchez, S., Belmonte, J., Cruz, M., & Antonio, J. (2020). Análisis correlacional de los factores incidentes en el nivel de competencia digital del profesorado. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 23(1), 143-159. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.396741

Sánchez, R., Cejudo, C. L., Gavira, S., & Gavira, R. (2021). Initial self-perception and level of digital competence of university teaching staff. Texto Livre, 15, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.35699/1983-3652.2022.36032

Sánchez-Tarazaga, L. (2016). Los marcos de competencias docentes: contribución a su estudio desde la política educativa europea. Journal of Supranational Policies of Education, (5), 44-67. https://doi.org/10.15366/jospoe2016.5.003

Sánchez-Tarazaga, L., Sanahuja, A., Esteve-Mon, F., & Ruiz-Bernardo, P. (2021). Competencia digital del profesorado en tiempos de pandemia: análisis de tres experiencias docentes en Educación Superior. In O. Macías, S. Quiñónez, & Y. Yucra (Eds.), Docentes de Iberoamérica frente a la pandemia. Desafíos y respuestas (pp. 50-57). Asociación Formación IB.

Silva, J., Cerda, C., Fernández-Sánchez, M., & Leon, M. (2022). Competencia digital docente del profesorado en formación inicial de universidades públicas chilenas. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado. Continuación de la Antigua Revista de Escuelas Normales, 97(36.1), 301-319. https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v97i36.1.90221

Tejada, J. (1999). El formador ante la Nuevas Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación: nuevos roles y nuevas competencias profesionales. Comunicación y Pedagogía,158, 17-26.

Torres, L., Martínez, A., Jaén, A., & Hermosilla, J. (2022). La percepción del profesorado de la Universidad Pablo de Olavide sobre su Competencia Digital Docente. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 63, 35-64. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.91943

Villa, A. (2020). Aprendizaje Basado en Competencias: desarrollo e implantación en el ámbito universitario. REDU. Revista de docencia Universitaria, 18(1), 19-46. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2020.13015

Villa, A., & García, A. (2006). Garantía Interna de Calidad Docente: Propuesta de un modelo de desarrollo profesional en la Universidad de Deusto. In E. Arregui & otros (Coord.), Políticas de Gestión de las Organizaciones Educativas. Implicaciones para el currículum universitario en el marco europeo. Universidad de Oviedo.

Villarroel, V., & Stuardo, W. (2022). Proponiendo una EdTech sustentable. Más allá de docentes powerpointers y clickerers en la Universidad. RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia,25(2), 241-258. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.25.2.32620

Viñoles-Cosentino, V., Sánchez-Caballé, A., & Esteve-Mon, F. M. (2022). Desarrollo de la competencia digital docente en contextos universitarios. Una revisión sistemática. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 20(2), 11-27. https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2022.20.2.001

Zabalza, M. A. (2010). Competencias docentes del profesorado universitario. Calidad y desarrollo profesional. Narcea.