Next Article in Journal
Examining the Interaction Effect of Control of Corruption and Income Level on Environmental Quality in Africa
Next Article in Special Issue
Virtual Field Trips in Binational Collaborative Teacher Training: Opportunities and Challenges in the Context of Education for Sustainable Development
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of High-Speed Railway Opening on Regional Economic Growth: The Case of the Wuhan–Guangzhou High-Speed Railway Line
Previous Article in Special Issue
Teaching Two-Eyed Seeing in Education for Sustainable Development: Inspirations from the Science|Environment|Health Pedagogy in Pandemic Times
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 18
10.3390/su141811387
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Digital Teaching Competence in Teacher Training as an Element to Attain SDG 4 of the 2030 Agenda

by
David Méndez
1,*,
Miriam Méndez
2 and
Juana María Anguita
3
1
Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio, 28691 Madrid, Spain
2
Facultad de Educación, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
3
Facultad de Educación, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(18), 11387; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811387
Submission received: 17 August 2022 / Revised: 5 September 2022 / Accepted: 7 September 2022 / Published: 10 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Education in Teacher Training in Time of Pandemic)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Improving the digital competences of teachers, students, and schools contributes to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 of the 2030 Agenda. That goal consists in enhancing the quality of education and offering learning opportunities. The knowledge of digital resources that teachers had and used during the COVID-19 confinement has contributed to the current awareness of the need to improve teachers’ digital competence. The main objective of this paper is to analyse the digital resources that teachers participating in this research used the most in Spain between March and June 2020 due to the lockdown experienced in that country. A validated questionnaire, which was administered online in schools and high schools of the Community of Madrid, was answered by 97 teachers who were able to teach from home. The results reveal their assessment of the technological resources they used. In their opinion, the most useful were digital platforms, online classes, and videos, whereas the least useful were online tests and forums. Their answers also show that the training they received was mainly through Internet tutorials and consultations with colleagues. In order to ensure quality education, it is important to improve teachers’ digital competence as a part of their training.

1. Introduction

The development and importance of technologies worldwide in the last few decades require that the entire population be digitally and technologically literate [1]. Within the sphere of education, acquisition of digital competence by students is one of the key objectives of compulsory education [2] in order to ensure better integration of individuals in present-day society. This plan is directly connected with Sustainable Development Goal 4 (hereinafter referred to as SDG), which consists of “[ensuring] inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” [3]. In consequence, most syllabuses have been modified, new resources have been incorporated in schools, and their infrastructures have been renewed to try to respond to the technological needs that have appeared. At the same time, new teaching and assessment practices have been developed [4]. That is to say, the spaces and styles of learning have undergone a necessary transformation, which has been accentuated and accelerated by the recent situation with the COVID-19 pandemic [5]. In order to implement all of these proposals geared at facilitating the achievement of SDG 4, teacher training is essential [6].

1.1. Digital Competence and Development of the SDGs

At present, digital competence must have a prominent role in teacher training. In fact, said competence and the current concept of educational quality are closely related [7], in line with the postulates of many of the SDGs that appear in the 2030 Agenda. In addition to the evident relationship that is established with SDG 4 (Quality Education) by contributing to the improvement of education, the latter prepares individuals to live in today’s global society, which also contributes to the development of SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) [8].
Likewise, sustainability, which is a characteristic of all the 2030 Agenda goals, is also related to education, as present-day training activities tend to be geared at increasing the level of social well-being, preserving at all times the balance between environment and development. In consequence, the development of teacher digital competence is in line with sustainability, bearing in mind everything that it implies at a personal and professional level in the framework of modern educational systems [9,10].
Digital competence forms part of students’ obligatory and postobligatory education up to the age of 18; it is also present at the university level of education. In that context, it adopts a transversal character that can be developed through the use of different digital and technological resources to enable students to attain a professional profile that favours their satisfactory integration into the job market [1,11,12].
In the field of education, the competence that is the focus of this study can be implemented in two very different ways. On one hand, it can be implemented as a professional competence geared at transmitting and developing teaching proposals adapted to different content and to the school context in which teachers must teach. On the other hand, it can be implemented as part of the training that all educators need in order to prepare their students in this competence [13]. Hence, it is necessary to have a basic knowledge of resources such as digital platforms, virtual campuses, blogs, questionnaires, videos, diverse applications, web mail, and/or forums, amongst others, but also of specific technological resources for the different areas of content. A great deal of research and many projects are currently underway in this respect, for example, UNIFY [14], NPTEL [15], and PGCE (UNIFY, NPTEL, and PGCE are science and engineering learning projects, most of them online) [16] in the area of sciences.
Irrespective of the area of knowledge in which one works, technological resources are present in all of them, although their impact is not always the same. In this respect, the Horizon Report [17] highlighted the importance of “identifying and describing emerging technologies likely to have a large impact […] in education around the globe” [p.3]. In view of this situation, teachers must have a specific knowledge of the technological resources to be used to ensure the effective learning of content. Likewise, students must be able to develop their digital competence on the basis of their cognitive capacity, level of motivation, and context in which the teaching–learning process takes place [18]. Concerning the type of knowledge teachers should or must have, Shulman [19] identified three types of specialised professional knowledge of teachers: pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge of the content, to which Mishra and Koehler [20] added technological knowledge. This categorisation shapes the theoretical TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) framework, which has been of special relevance in the last decade [21,22,23]. It should be noted that the number of categories has grown, depending on the concept of competence used [24,25].
Different institutions and bodies have spoken in favour of digital competence, in respect to students as well as teachers and schools [26,27,28], as it is shown in Table 1. In addition, they have established a Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (at a European level, the Digital Competence Framework for Educators, DigCompEdu) to certify said competence.
As can be seen, digital competence has been considered in the different teacher training programmes, in spite of which teachers continue to have difficulties to prepare themselves in this competence [8]. This situation has led certain Spanish regions, including Castilla-La Mancha, to draft a holistic digitisation programme that includes students, teachers, and schools [30]. The programme of Castilla-La Mancha is underway for the two-year period 2021–23, with the objective of having teachers acquire at least a B1 level of competence. Although there has been a need for these programmes for some time now, they are being implemented at present, following years of unsuccessful attempts at digitisation. What triggered this change?
Since the beginning of the 21st century, different European encounters have been held that have aimed at adopting a series of measures that would guarantee lifelong learning. In the course of these encounters, it became evident that lifelong learning required students to have a series of competences, which included Digital Competence [2]. Within the Spanish context, the LOE (2006) [31] was the first law of education that included the requirement that all students acquire a series of competences, called basic competences, by the end of the different obligatory stages of education. In consequence, that law of education followed the European recommendation, and as such, also included Digital Competence. With the approval of the LOMCE (2013) [32], the competences were consolidated and their names were changed to become key competences, one of which was Digital Competence. Recently, the LOMLOE (2020) [33] also included the competence subject matter of this paper and added another one related to STEM technology. That is to say, Digital Competence is reinforced and continues to grow. In this sense, the publication of the digital competence reference framework (Marco de referencia de la competencia digital docente, 2020) for Spain [34] was the trigger for adopting solid measures such as the implementation of digitisation programmes similar to the one mentioned above in respect to Castilla-La Mancha.

1.2. Technology in Education, Methodological Change, and SDG 4

The European Union is promoting the use of technology in classrooms and the integration of active and innovating teaching methodologies which foment cooperative learning as the basis for the implementation of other types of instruction, highlighting the role of students as the real protagonists in the acquisition of knowledge. Both proposals can go hand in hand and complement each other [35,36], thus entailing progress toward achieving SDG 4.
In view of the European proposals, there is no unity amongst teachers regarding the implementation of the aforementioned proposals in their classes. In respect to the use of technology in classrooms, teachers and their training, beliefs, motivations, and skills are of vital importance in ensuring that students satisfactorily acquire digital competence [37,38,39,40]. Teacher training must be enhanced with respect to resources and security, provision of technical support to resolve problems that may arise and infrastructures for schools, and to increase teachers’ confidence in regard to the incorporation and use of technologies in the classroom [9].
As teachers’ digital literacy improves, the integration of technologies in their classrooms will also improve. These circumstances, such as the European proposals mentioned above, will also lead to achieving SDG 4 [41]. However, the use of technologies does not entail, in itself, an improvement of the results of learning [42,43]. The introduction of technologies may improve students’ motivation [44]; however, it is not always a motivation for learning content, but simply for the use of technologies. Although resources have evolved and adapted to curricular and pedagogical motivational aspects, it is essential that teachers design didactic proposals using the technology so that students may acquire adequate and significant learning. The introduction of technologies in the classroom has favoured the development of innovating methodologies, such as the flipped classroom, e-learning, blended-learning, and mobile learning [41,45,46,47]. Nonetheless, it must be noted that all methodological changes require a period of research to assess the results, applicability [48], training, and adaptation.
Another noteworthy aspect is related to allocating infrastructures to educational centres (computers, tablets, projectors, and adequate access to the Internet, amongst others), and to have access to digital and virtual learning environments that are safe [49]. In Spain, like in other countries, important investments were made to equip schools with this type of resources and to favour the development of good teaching practices to help students explore, discover, and construct meaning and knowledge, and develop visualisation and creative thinking skills [4]. Despite all the efforts made, security and problem resolution continue to be two of the main weak points arising from the process of digitisation in schools and are a source of concern for both parents and teachers. In addition, sometimes the improvement of the infrastructure does not necessarily lead to the appropriate integration and use of digital resources [4,50]. A large part of the success of the introduction of technologies in education stems from having the trust of parents and responsible students. Parents’ and teachers’ attitudes toward the introduction of technology in schools range from optimism to pessimism. The pessimist attitude and the rejection of the introduction of technologies in schools may be motivated by the consequences that arise from the incorrect use of the technology. Examples include the possible deterioration of social and family relations, harassment and cyberbullying, addiction, and potential dependencies [4,51].
The period of confinement all over the world due to the health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic fostered an urgent need for new resources and new practices, such as online meetings, tutorials, and classes. As a result, the educational sector has become aware of the overriding importance of developing and improving the digital competence of teachers and students [52,53]. During that time of isolation, technologies became the sole essential manner to make education reach all students. Here, again, the evidence is directly associated to SDG 4 of the 2030 Agenda [3].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Objectives

The general objective of this study was to analyse the digital resources teachers used the most between March and June 2020 in Spain as a result of the changes the education sector had to face due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At a more specific level, the study aimed to find out how teachers assess the online tools and resources they used, and to know the type of training they received in respect to said tools and resources during the period analysed.
It is worth noting that in the 2019–2020 academic year, all educational centres in Spain were closed from March to June due to the tough restrictions resulting from the pandemic. Although the centres were given the possibility of providing online lessons if they could, given the unexpected circumstances, most of them were not able to meet the appropriate educational needs of students. They either had no capability or their teachers were not trained to this effect. Consequently, students were unable to follow their courses.

2.2. Instrument

In this nonexperimental quantitative research, the instrument used to collect data was a questionnaire comprising 22 questions, administered to teachers in different schools in Spain during the months of May and June 2020, right at the end of the period of confinement. In order to prepare the list of technological tools used during the confinement and its subsequent inclusion in the questionnaire, ten schoolteachers were interviewed. Once the questionnaire was ready, it was reviewed by five university professors and validated by ten primary school and high school teachers who modified and extended some of the questions with the objective of obtaining information that was as complete as possible. The questionnaire was divided into several sections: the first was related to aspects of gender, type of school, ages of school students, and years of experience; the second to the technological tools used before and during the confinement; the third to the utility of said technological tools; and the Section 4 had to do with the training received in respect to the use of these tools. The questions in Section 2, Section 3, and Section 4 were closed and had to be answered by means of a Likert scale with five possible options: Very, Quite, Some, Little, and No. The teachers were asked about the tools they used in their classes before the confinement and the tools they used for teaching during the confinement
The questionnaire was administered in primary schools and high schools of the Community of Madrid, and a total of 97 teachers answered. Given the size of the sample, the data were presented as absolute figures, since percentages were nearly the same. This avoided having many decimals, which would have made reading the paper more complex.

2.3. Sample

The sample of teachers consisted of 37 men and 60 women. In total, 36 taught in public schools, 37 in charter schools, and 24 in private schools. In respect to the levels in which the teachers worked, 18 taught in baccalaureate programmes, 13 in secondary education programmes, 46 in primary education programmes, and 17 in both secondary education and baccalaureate programmes. The teachers’ experience was also an important factor. Overall, 9 teachers had 1 year of experience or less, 8 had been teaching for 2 to 4 years, 12 for 5 to 10 years, and 68 had been teaching for more than 10 years. This fact revealed that 80% of the teachers were not newcomers to the world of education and had been involved in teaching for 4 years or more.
Although the sample size may seem discrete, it can be considered representative given the circumstances described above. It must be highlighted that during the 2019–2020 academic year, to a great extent neither the educational centres nor the teaching staff in Spain had the appropriate resources and/or the specific training necessary to provide students with quality online lessons. In their research involving a sample of 3764 teachers, Hernández-Ortega and Álvarez-Herrero [54] highlight that 66.5% of the teachers surveyed only used emails, if anything, as a digital tool to continue teaching during the period of confinement, and that only 33.5% of primary and secondary school teachers used some type of digital platform or other type of tool to teach. The situation was particularly difficult in primary education, where students need close contact with their teachers

3. Results

On the basis of the impulse and the need to use technological tools during the COVID-19 pandemic and of the study’s objectives, the teachers in the sample were asked about the technological tools they used for teaching before the confinement; they were shown different closed options and one open option in which they could add other tools that were not in the list they had been given. Likewise, they were asked about the technology(ies) they used for teaching during the confinement.
The results about the tools used before and after the confinement are shown in Table 2.
Before the pandemic, most of the teachers had already used emails and digital platforms or websites to post files so they would be accessible to students. During the confinement, they continued to use these resources since they were familiar with them. However, very few had used online exams or tests; specifically, only 11 teachers had used them before the confinement, and the number subsequently went up to 76. Due to the situation, they also started using online classes, both synchronous and asynchronous. The latter consisted of short videos in which the teacher recorded himself/herself explaining a concept. Approximately 50% of the teachers surveyed chose to use recorded videos and online classes to teach content to their students.
Regarding the most useful tools utilised during the confinement, teachers were asked to only choose one or two options so as to discriminate with respect to other tools that were also used. The results are shown in Table 3.
The results reveal that the platforms or websites that teachers had used before the confinement were the most useful tools. In addition, tools they had never used are also included, such as online classes and short videos to explain some concept (aspect previously highlighted). In fact, of the 52 teachers that used online classes, 46 said they were very useful. Something similar occurred with recorded videos: of the 50 teachers that used them, 48 stated that they were very useful. In consequence, approximately 90% of the teachers who used the online classes and the recorded videos considered that they were the most useful tools for teaching during the confinement.
On the other hand, emails only seemed useful to one third of the teachers surveyed. As shown in Table 2, about 90% of all the teachers participating in this study had to use them. Only 10 made use of forums (see Table 2), and of those, only 4 considered them useful.
Table 4 shows the teachers’ assessment of the utility of some of the tools they used for teaching during the confinement.
It is evident that, of all the resources offered, forums were the only ones that were not useful for teaching. For 35 teachers, online exams or tests were quite useful, although there were 27 for whom they were useless or of little utility, despite being one of the tools used by the largest number of teachers, about 78% of them (see Table 2).
Concerning other tools such as emails, online classes, platforms, and videos, the majority of teachers thought that they were quite useful. In fact, more than 60% of the teachers surveyed considered that they are useful, and fewer than 12% of them thought that some of these tools have little or no utility.
Table 5 shows the teachers’ assessment of their online classes, detailing specific aspects of their answers. A note is made that in the answers it was possible to select several aspects.
Of the teachers that had online classes, who represent nearly 70% of survey respondents, only 30% considered that students participated in these classes. The others thought that students were bored and unable to follow the online classes.
Other, more revealing questions had to do with the training teachers had had regarding these tools prior to the confinement, and the training they had during confinement (see Table 6 and Table 7).
One of the possible options was “I had used it before”; in other words, teachers using this tool knew how to use it and did not require any training.
There was little or no training regarding these tools prior to confinement. In the case of platforms, which is the tool for which teachers were the most prepared, only 30% had received some kind of training. In the case of online classes, recording videos, and online tests, more than 85% had had very little training. Hence, at the beginning of confinement, most teachers had had no training regarding the tools they would have to use for teaching for as long as confinement lasted. In addition, a note should be made that despite the fact that most teachers had been teaching for more than four years, as mentioned above, the training they had received regarding these tools was practically nonexistent.
Throughout the time of confinement, during which teachers had to use online classes, recorded videos, digital platforms, and online exams or tests, fewer than 10% of them received a course with several sessions regarding these tools. The majority did not have any training at all. More than 70% of the teachers did not have training about recording videos, and more than 60% did not have any training about online classes, even though in many cases that was the tool used to continue having classes.

4. Discussion

The resources used by teachers during the time of confinement due to COVID-19 were very diverse. Of all these resources, teachers assessed digital platforms and websites as the most useful. One half of the teachers knew about these tools before the pandemic. In a research study in which 79 students participated, Anguita, Méndez, and Méndez [55] showed that during said period, digital platforms was the most valued resource. In other words, teachers and students coincide not only in respect to the tools used (digital platforms), but also in their assessment of that tool. In connection with digital platforms, Lestari and Gunawan [56] showed that their use in primary and secondary education tends to improve student learning and motivation. In an experience with future primary school teachers, the use of platforms for mathematics improved their intrinsic motivation for learning [57].
Online classes and videos were other resources used by teachers, which the latter learned to value during confinement. However, they observed that the level of student participation in these types of classes was low. A note should be made that student participation is one of the main aspects on which new teaching methodologies are based [58]. A research study carried out in Indonesia, in which 67 primary school teachers participated, describes their perceptions during confinement, highlighting that one of the resources they used was internet videos due to their accessibility and the explanations they had regarding their content [59].
In general terms, teachers were not very satisfied with the use of online exams and tests to grade their students’ knowledge. Teachers of the sample knew about online questionnaires prior to the confinement, which they used to measure their students’ level of comprehension. In a research study carried out on 165 teachers during confinement, fewer than 20% of them conducted online exams [60]. In the study carried out by Aliyyah et al. [59], one of the participating teachers stated that online tests were not effective in assessing student knowledge because of the assistance parents gave their children. This may be contradictory, bearing in mind that education involves teachers, students, parents, institutions, and all of society. The dialogue and reflection to initiate changes in education must include all the parties involved in order to reach the highest possible degree of conviction and consensus. Obviously certain aspects, such as the one indicated, correspond exclusively to students.
The conclusions reached by König et al. [60] concerning communication, the preparation of content, and teaching practice are worth mentioning. In their study, 89 participants revealed that during the period of confinement, nearly 90% of the teachers had communicated regularly with students and families. However, even though they had to prepare new content, only 20% of them reported having taught classes online at least once a week, and fewer than 20% of them indicated they had given online tests. In this respect, it should be noted that in Spain, the Ministry of Education advised educational centres not to deliver new contents to students but just to review the topics already covered in face-to-face classes before the confinement. In case new content was included, they could not be taken into account in the final course evaluation, as knowledge acquisition of all students could not be guaranteed.
As for the training received by teachers regarding the resources mentioned, in most cases it was nonexistent. Hence, it is difficult for teachers to make the most of these tools. Serious training is needed in order to enable progress toward achieving SDG 4, despite the fact that 15 to 20% of teachers, depending on the technological resource, looked for ways to improve their knowledge in respect to said resource. In connection with this aspect, Guillén-Gómez et al. [61] carried out a study involving 81 teachers. It showed that the development of pedagogical digital competence depended significantly on gender and age. Teachers had a higher level in the pedagogical use of digital tools such as YouTube videos, educational blogs, and educational social media as compared to the educational use of tools such as forums and tests, and for the creation of teaching materials.
The results also show how teachers became more familiar with these resources. Thus, it is construed that their knowledge of technological resources and their use has improved. The number of tools they used during the confinement increased. According to Pokhrel and Chhetri [62], online teaching has enabled the development of new forms of teaching and learning. In fact, it allows for responding to the individual needs of each student, instead of doing so in a generalised manner [63]. Therefore, in order to develop digital competence in students, it is important that teachers have that competence. Napal Fraile et al. [64] assessed the digital competence of 47 secondary school teachers undergoing initial training. They evidenced that the latter showed a low level of digital competence in respect to content creation and problem resolution. In addition, their study showed that the knowledge and capacities acquired had been self-taught.

5. Conclusions

The period of confinement as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic favoured an increase in the use of technological tools in the field of education. Likewise, it also contributed to improving the experience of using these technologies. A total of 60% of the teachers surveyed consider that digital platforms and websites were the most useful resources during the confinement. These resources were also the ones most valued by third-year students of secondary education and the Baccalaureate programme in the study carried out by Anguita et al. [55] on student motivation regarding the use of digital tools during the confinement. A note should be made that teachers participating in this research were already familiar with these resources prior to the confinement. The use of videos and online classes, which are resources that had not been used before, were also valued as being useful during the pandemic. In fact, these tools were considered useful by more than 90% of the teachers surveyed who used them during that period of time. More research is required in the field of educational technology in order to look for the best manner by which to take advantage of its potential and thus improve teaching results [47].
In addition, it is important to have necessary training in order to use said technological tools in a suitable manner for education and for teaching content. In fact, only 15% of the teachers surveyed had had a course or training session regarding online classes and recording videos for educational use. In the case of digital platforms, 90% of the teachers used them during the confinement. It should be highlighted that half of them had already used them before the confinement; nonetheless, only 17% of the teachers surveyed had had a course or a training session regarding that tool. In consequence, the lack of training experienced by the teachers who participated in this study was not only limited to the period of the pandemic and to the tools they had to use at that time; it is a much bigger problem that must be urgently resolved in order to achieve SDG 4.
Online exams and tests, as well as forums, are the digital tools that the teachers of the sample valued the least. More than 80% of them have used online exams or tests, but only 10% had received training in respect to those tools.
It should be highlighted that online exams vary depending on the teacher’s experience and the school. Training should be offered to teachers regarding the different types of online exams, their advantages and disadvantages, and measures to prevent plagiarism. In consequence, with the growing presence of technology in society, this study’s contribution focuses on teachers’ need for training in technological tools in order to provide students with the most complete education possible and, in turn, satisfy the latter’s needs.
Concerning the problems detected, teachers must be provided with comprehensive training in technological and digital resources. This is one of the targets to achieve SDG 4 of the 2030 Agenda, which precisely focuses on improving teacher training. That training should be mainly centred on the use of tools (including technological hardware that may serve for teaching), such as mobile telephones or tablets for educational purposes, digital platforms or websites, forums and robots, specific educational applications of each area of knowledge, etc. Examples of this type of application are Geogebra, Illumination, NRICH, Khan Academy, and Matific in the area of Mathematics; and Duolingo, Babbel, and LearnEnglish, among others, in the area of English. The introduction to these resources should be accompanied by the knowledge of how students learn when using them and how they can be used to enhance learning. Moreover, training regarding resources for online testing and how to evaluate online tests as best as possible in the framework of student assessment should also be available.
Additionally, good teaching practices should be shared using online resources that could serve as models of reference [65]. In addition to this initial training, teachers should be encouraged to collaborate with teacher networks that become digital learning and collaboration communities and that favour opportunities for online professional development [4,65]. Taking into account the report of the European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice [4] regarding digital education in schools in Europe, teacher training is the most important aspect for the digital training of the population, in other words, the development of teacher digital competence with the objective of integrating the most appropriate digital resources depending on the content to be taught, the time when learning occurs, and the type of student. The Erasmus Projects promote the collaboration between teachers at different schools and countries and the exchange of good STEAM and STEM teaching practices, as well as others linked to innovation that can help create networks of teacher communities.
The methodological change in teaching should constitute another line of training, with the objective that the new methodologies contribute to giving students a more active and relevant role in their learning process, and that the use of technology serves as an element to facilitate said objective [13]. A methodological change requires time for training and convincing the educational community. Research must provide the data that verify the results in order to generate confidence in the new paradigm.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, D.M. and M.M.; methodology, D.M.; software, M.M.; validation, D.M. and M.M.; formal analysis, M.M.; investigation, J.M.A.; resources, J.M.A.; data curation, M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.M.A.; writing—review and editing, J.M.A. and M.M.; visualisation, J.M.A.; supervision, J.M.A.; project administration, D.M.; funding acquisition, D.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Fundación Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the fact that a random sample was used to complete the questionnaires. Said questionnaires were distributed through the Internet (Microsoft Forms) to different schools, with which there was no direct contact. The teachers who participated in the questionnaires did so on a voluntary basis, and no information was requested that could be used to identify them or the schools in which they taught. Consequently, it was impossible to establish a relationship between persons, schools, and where the latter were located. It was decided to do the research this way so as to avoid having any kind of ethical issue.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available. Furthermore, it is possible to contact one of the study’s authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare there is no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Méndez, D. La Sociedad Tecnológica Actual y sus Implicaciones en la Educación Científica. Soc. Utopía 2012, 40, 72–85. Available online: https://www.fpablovi.org/sociedad-y-utopia/40/40.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2022).
  2. European Union; European Parliament & Council. Recommendation (EC) 2006/962 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Off. J. Eur. Union 2006, L 394, 10–12. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2006/962/oj (accessed on 10 December 2021).
  3. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2015; Available online: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1 (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  4. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. Digital Education at School in Europe; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d7834ad0-ddac-11e9-9c4e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (accessed on 2 February 2022).
  5. Carrascal, S.; De Vicente, A.M.; Sierra, J. Transformación e innovación educativa durante la crisis del COVID-19. Estilos y modelos de enseñanza y aprendizaje. Rev. Estilos Aprendiz. 2020, 13, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kioupi, V.; Voulvoulis, N. Education for sustainable development: A systemic framework for connecting the SDGs to educational outcomes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Reimers, F. Educación Global para Mejorar el Mundo; Biblioteca Innovación Educativa, SM: Madrid, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rangel-Pérez, C.; Gato-Bermúdez, M.-J.; Musicco-Nombela, D.; Ruiz-Alberdi, C. The Massive Implementation of ICT in Universities and Its Implications for Ensuring SDG 4: Challenges and Difficulties for Professors. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Colás-Bravo, P.; Conde-Jiménez, J.; Reyes-de-Cózar, S. Sustainability and Digital Teaching Competence in Higher Education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zeyer, A. Teaching Two-Eyed Seeing in Education for Sustainable Development: Inspirations from the Science|Environment|Health Pedagogy in Pandemic Times. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chuliá-Jordán, R.; Peña, A.V.; Llinares, M.C. The Press as a Resource for Promoting Sustainability Competencies in Teacher Training: The Case of SDG 7. Sustainability 2022, 14, 857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fischman, P.; Irarrazaval, M. Debate: Mental health, social crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile. Child Adolesc. Ment. Health 2020, 25, 256–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Méndez, D.; Méndez, M. El profesorado de ciencias y matemáticas y la comunicación a través de las TIC. Hist. Comun. Soc. 2014, 19, 315–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mabila, T.E.; Malatje, S.E.; Addo-Bediako, A.; Kazeni, M.M.; Mathabatha, S.S. The role of foundation programmes in science education: The UNIFY programme at the University of Limpopo, South Africa. Int. J. Educ. Develop. 2006, 26, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sunder, M. NPTEL: A programme for free online and open engineering and science education. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Workshop Technology for Education, Bangalore, India, 4–6 August 2009; Volume T4E, pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Edwards, N. Multimodality in Science Education as Productive Pedagogy in a PGCE Programme. Perspect. Educ. 2015, 33, 159–175. Available online: https://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/pie/article/view/1922 (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  17. Johnson, L.; Becker, S.A.; Estrada, V.; Freeman, A. NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition; The New Media Consortium: Austin, TX, USA, 2015. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559357.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2019).
  18. Sweller, J. Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educ. Technol. Res. Develop. 2020, 68, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shulman, L.S. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harv. Educ. Rev. 1987, 57, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mishra, P.; Koehler, M.J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teach. Coll. Rec. Voice Sch. Educ. 2006, 108, 1017–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Harris, J.B.; Phillips, M.; Koehler, M.J.; Rosenberg, J.M. TPCK/TPACK research and development: Past, present, and future directions. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2017, 33, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hew, K.F.; Lan, M.; Tang, Y.; Jia, C.; Lo, C.K. Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 956–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Voogt, J.M.; Fisser, P.; Pareja, N.; Tondeur, J.; van Braak, J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge-a review of the literature. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2013, 29, 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sailer, M.; Stadler, M.; Schultz-Pernice, F.; Franke, U.; Schöffmann, C.; Paniotova, V.; Husagic, L.; Fischer, F. Technology-related teaching skills and attitudes: Validation of a scenario-based self-assessment instrument for teachers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 115, 106625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Seufert, S.; Guggemos, J.; Sailer, M. Technology-related knowledge, skills, and attitudes of pre- and in-service teachers: The current situation and emerging trends. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 115, 106552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. INTEF. Marco Común de Competencia Digital Docente. Rev. Iberoam. Educ. Distancia 2017, 21, 369–370. Available online: http://aprende.intef.es/sites/default/files/2018-05/2017_1020_Marco-Com%C3%BAn-de-Competencia-Digital-Docente.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  27. UNESCO. ICT Competency Framework for Teachers; UNESCO: London, UK, 2018; Available online: https://www.open.edu/openlearncreate/pluginfile.php/306820/mod_resource/content/2/UNESCO%20ICT%20Competency%20Framework%20V3.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  28. UNESCO. ICT. Competency Framework for Teachers; UNESCO: London, UK, 2011; Available online: https://iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214694.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  29. Ferrari, A.; Punie, Y.; Brecko, B. DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2013. [CrossRef]
  30. Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes de Castilla-La Mancha. Plan de Digitalización Educativa de Castilla-La Mancha 2021–2023; Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes de Castilla-La Mancha: Toledo, Spain, 2022. Available online: https://www.educa.jccm.es/es/centros/tecnologia-educacion/plan-digitalizacion-educativa-castilla-mancha-2021-2023 (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  31. Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de Mayo, de Educación. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 4 Mayo 2006, No 106, 17158–17207. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2006-7899 (accessed on 1 March 2020).
  32. Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de Diciembre, para la Mejora de la Calidad Educativa. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 10 Diciembre 2014, No 295, 122868–122953. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2013/BOE-A-2013-12886-consolidado.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  33. Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de Diciembre, por la que se Modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, 3 de Mayo, de Educación. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 30 de Diciembre 2020, No 340, 122868–122953. Available online: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2020/12/30/pdfs/BOE-A-2020-17264.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  34. Resolución de 2 de Julio de 2020, de la Dirección General de Evaluación y Cooperación Territorial, por la que se Publica el Acuerdo de la Conferencia Sectorial de Educación Sobre el Marco de Referencia de la Competencia Digital Docente. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 13 Julio 2020, 50638–50668. Available online: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/res/2020/07/02/(2) (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  35. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. Science Education in EUROPE; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2011. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/bae53054-c26c-4c9f-8366-5f95e2187634 (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  36. Li, J.; Luo, H.; Zhao, L.; Zhu, M.; Ma, L.; Liao, X. Promoting STEAM Education in Primary School through Cooperative Teaching: A Design-Based Research Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fraillon, J.; Ainley, J.; Schulz, W.; Friedman, T.; Duckworth, D. Preparing for Life in a Digital World: IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report; International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA): Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Available online: https://www.iea.nl/publications/study-reports/preparing-life-digital-world (accessed on 1 March 2020).
  38. Kirschner, P.A. Do we need teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning? Instr. Sci. 2015, 43, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cheng, S.L.; Xie, K. The relations among teacher value beliefs, personal characteristics, and TPACK in intervention and non-intervention settings. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2018, 74, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Scherer, R.; Teo, T. Unpacking teachers’ intentions to integrate technology: A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2019, 27, 90–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, J.; Chen, Z.; Ma, J.; Liu, Z. Investigating the Influencing Factors of Teachers’ Information and Communications Technology-Integrated Teaching Behaviors toward “Learner-Centered” Reform Using Structural Equation Modeling. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. J-PAL. Will Technology Transform Education for the Better? J-PAL: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.povertyactionlab.org/publication/will-technology-transform-education-better (accessed on 1 June 2021).
  43. Soubra, L.; Al-Ghouti, M.A.; Abu-Dieyeh, M.; Crovella, S.; Abou-Saleh, H. Impacts on Student Learning and Skills and Implementation Challenges of Two Student-Centered Learning Methods Applied in Online Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Méndez, D.; Méndez, M.; Anguita, J. Motivation of 14 year-old students using tablets, compared to those using textbooks and workbooks. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2018, 12, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. O’Flaherty, J.; Phillips, C. The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. Int. High. Educ. 2015, 25, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Strayer, J.F. How Learning in an Inverted Classroom Influences Cooperation, Innovation and Task Orientation. Learn. Environ. Res. 2012, 15, 171–193. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4 (accessed on 1 April 2022). [CrossRef]
  47. Zhou, T.; Zhang, W. Effectiveness Study on Online or Blended Language Learning Based on Student Achievement: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Caldeiro-Pedreira, M.C.; Yot, C.; Castro, A. Detection of Mobile Devices-Based Good Educational Practices in Primary School. Prism. Soc. 2018, 20, 58–75. Available online: https://revistaprismasocial.es/article/view/2293 (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  49. Huang, C.; Wang, H.; Yang, C.; Steven, J.H. A Derivation of Factors Influencing the Diffusion and Adoption of an Open Source Learning Platform. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lin, C.-H.; Chang, Y.-Y. A Progressive Three-Stage Teaching Method Using Interactive Classroom Activities to Improve Learning Motivation in Computer Networking Courses. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. de la Hoz, J.P. Riesgos percibidos por estudiantes adolescentes en el uso de las nuevas tecnologías y cómo reaccionan ante ellos. Bordon 2018, 70, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Carrillo, C.; Flores, M.A. COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of online teaching and learning practices. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 43, 466–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Martín-Núñez, J.L.; Bravo-Ramos, J.L.; Sastre-Merino, S.; Pablo-Lerchundi, I.; Redondo, A.C.; Núñez-del-Río, C. Teaching in Secondary Education Teacher Training with a Hybrid Model: Students’ Perceptions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hernández-Ortega, J.; Álvarez-Herrero, J.F. Gestión educativa del confinamiento por COVID-19: Percepción del docente en España. Rev. Esp. Educ. Comp. 2021, 38, 129–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Anguita, J.M.; Méndez, M.; Méndez, D. Motivación de alumnos de Educación Secundaria y Bachillerato hacia el uso de recursos digitales durante la crisis del Covid-19. Rev. Estilos Aprendiz. 2020, 13, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lestari, P.A.S.; Gunawan, G. The Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on Learning Implementation of Primary and Secondary School Levels. Indonesian. J. Elem. Child. Educ. 2020, 1, 58–63. Available online: http://journal.publication-center.com/index.php/ijece/article/view/141 (accessed on 1 April 2021).
  57. Méndez, D.; Méndez, M.; Anguita, J.M. The effect of digital platforms in the motivation of future primary education teachers towards mathematics. New Trends Issues Proc. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2020, 7, 112–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Méndez, M.; Méndez, D. El cambio didáctico y sus consecuencias en el profesorado de matemáticas y ciencias. Hist. Comun. Soc. 2013, 11, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Aliyyah, R.R.; Rachmadtullah, R.; Samsudin, A.; Syaodih, E.; Nurtanto, M.; Tambunan, A.R.S. The perceptions of primary school teachers of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic period: A case study in Indonesia. J. Ethn. Cult. Stud. 2020, 7, 90–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. König, J.; Jäger-Biela, D.J.; Glutsch, N. Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 43, 608–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Guillén-Gámez, F.D.; Mayorga-Fernández, M.J.; Bravo-Agapito, J.; Escribano-Ortiz, D. Analysis of Teachers’ Pedagogical Digital Competence: Identification of Factors Predicting Their Acquisition. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2021, 26, 481–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pokhrel, S.; Chhetri, R.A. Literature Review on Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Teaching and Learning. High. Educ. Future 2021, 8, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Daniel, S.J. Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects 2020, 49, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fraile, M.N.; Peñalva-Vélez, A.; Lacambra, A.M.M. Development of Digital Competence in Secondary Education Teachers’ Training. Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Theelen, H.; Willems, M.C.; Van den Beemt, A.; Conjin, R.; den Brok, P. Virtual Internships in Blended Environments to Prepare Preservice Teachers for the Professional Teaching Context. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 51, 194–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Comparison of digital competence frameworks of reference.
Table 1. Comparison of digital competence frameworks of reference.
Aspects of Teacher Digital Competence [26]Aspects of Teacher Digital Competence [27]Areas of Digital Competence [29]
Information and informational literacy
Communication and collaboration
Creation of digital content
Security
Problem resolution
Information and informational literacy		Comprehension of the role of ICTs in educational policies
Curriculums and assessment
Pedagogy
Application of digital competences
Organisation and administration
Professional teacher training Comprehension of the role of ICTs in educational policies		Information management
Collaboration
Communication and sharing
Creation of content and knowledge
Ethics and responsibility
Evaluation and resolution of problems
Technical operations
Table
Table 2. Tools used by teachers before and during the confinement.
Table 2. Tools used by teachers before and during the confinement.
ToolsPreconfinementConfinement
Emails6588
Platforms or websites4787
Tablet290
Online exam or test1176
Forums210
Online classes052
Short videos 050
Blackboard Collaboration03
Teams016
Zoom040
Google Meet6532
Table
Table 3. Utility of tools used during the confinement.
Table 3. Utility of tools used during the confinement.
ToolsTeachers who Considered Them Useful
Emails34
Platforms or websites64
Online exam or test21
Forums4
Online classes46
Short videos48
Table
Table 4. Teachers’ assessment of the technological tools used during the confinement.
Table 4. Teachers’ assessment of the technological tools used during the confinement.
AssessmentOnline ClassesRecorded Videos to Explain SomethingPlatform or WebsiteOnline Exam and TestEmailsForums
Very useful32354113351
Quite useful29323622355
Some utility211216311621
Little utility85220913
No utility2227019
Table
Table 5. Assessment of online classes.
Table 5. Assessment of online classes.
Online ClassesNumber of Teachers
I am the one who spoke the most during the classes.22
Students get lost or bored.27
Students participate a lot.30
I did not have online classes.29
Table
Table 6. Training in tools before the confinement.
Table 6. Training in tools before the confinement.
TrainingOnline classesRecording VideosDigital PlatformsOnline Exam or Test
A lot1321
Quite a lot57219
Some notion37304524
None53552360
I had used it before1263
Table
Table 7. Training in tools during the confinement.
Table 7. Training in tools during the confinement.
TrainingOnline ClassesRecording VideosDigital PlatformsOnline Exam or Test
A course with several sessions5495
A person who resolved my questions1041218
Internet tutorials1210169
One session8774
None62705058
Other option0233
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Méndez, D.; Méndez, M.; Anguita, J.M. Digital Teaching Competence in Teacher Training as an Element to Attain SDG 4 of the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811387

AMA Style

Méndez D, Méndez M, Anguita JM. Digital Teaching Competence in Teacher Training as an Element to Attain SDG 4 of the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability. 2022; 14(18):11387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811387

Chicago/Turabian Style

Méndez, David, Miriam Méndez, and Juana María Anguita. 2022. "Digital Teaching Competence in Teacher Training as an Element to Attain SDG 4 of the 2030 Agenda" Sustainability 14, no. 18: 11387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811387

APA Style

Méndez, D., Méndez, M., & Anguita, J. M. (2022). Digital Teaching Competence in Teacher Training as an Element to Attain SDG 4 of the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability, 14(18), 11387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811387

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop