The results of this study offer an insightful and comprehensive portrait of teachers’ digital technology usage. We synthesized the data to provide a comprehensive overview of the teachers’ proficiency levels and mean scores across various digital competence areas. Additionally, we analyzed the data to identify potential variations based on several demographic factors, including age group, gender, duration of teaching service, duration of digital use, and the specific organic unit to which they belong.
4.2. Proficiency Levels by Areas of Competence
In Area 1-Professional Engagement (
Figure 4), we observed that 11.2% of teachers exhibit basic digital proficiency (levels A1 and A2), relying on digital technologies for fundamental communication, interaction, and collaboration with colleagues and students. The largest segment of the sample, comprising 68.2% of teachers, demonstrated intermediate proficiency levels. These individuals effectively and responsibly employ digital tools to enhance communication within the institution and support their professional development.
Additionally, we identified a group of highly proficient teachers (20.6%) who are advance in utilizing digital technologies. They actively engage in reflective practices to enhance institutional communication and consistently leverage digital tools to support their ongoing professional growth.
Upon analyzing responses related to this dimension, we discovered that a significant portion of teachers (52.3%) skillfully integrate various digital solutions to communicate more effectively based on their specific objectives. Furthermore, a majority of educators had been actively enhancing their digital skills either through self-directed learning or through collaborative discussions with colleagues, focusing on innovating and improving educational practices.
Regarding online training involvement, 44.5% of respondents reported participating in training sessions multiple times, while 42.1% engaged in such training very frequently. This highlights the teachers’ proactive approach to continuous learning and professional development in the digital realm.
An encouraging finding was that approximately 90% of teachers demonstrated critical thinking in their utilization of digital resources. This indicates a high level of discernment and thoughtfulness in selecting and employing digital tools, ensuring their effective and meaningful integration in educational settings.
In Area 2-Digital Technologies Resources (
Figure 5), we observed a predominant concentration of teachers at intermediate levels, accounting for 56.1% of the sample. Notably, a significant portion of these teachers excelled at level B1, demonstrating their research proficiency in identifying and evaluating digital resources that they can modify and adapt to suit their instructional needs. Furthermore, they play an essential role in selecting digital resources, recommending their use to students and critically assessing the reliability and suitability of these resources for their institution’s pedagogical project.
Among the respondents, 26.2% displayed proficiency at the initial levels. These teachers primarily rely on simple internet search strategies to locate digital content relevant to the teaching and learning process. However, they do not actively engage in modifying or sharing these resources.
Interestingly, only a minority of teachers, comprising 17.8%, demonstrated advanced proficiency levels in this area. These educators are highly adept at evaluating, creating and publishing interactive digital content to enhance the teaching-learning process.
Upon analyzing the responses, we noted that teachers displayed significant confidence in using digital technologies and resources. Around 90% of respondents reported collaborating through shared portfolios and collaborative environments, fostering a sense of community and knowledge exchange. Approximately 41% of these educators actively utilize networks and sharing platforms to exchange ideas and materials with their peers, promoting a culture of innovation and knowledge dissemination.
However, one concerning aspect of our analysis relates to the use of security mechanisms to protect sensitive content. Only 33% of teachers reported using conscious measures to safeguard documents and files when sharing them. This indicates a potential area for improvement in ensuring data security and privacy.
In Area 3—Teaching and Learning (
Figure 6), 89.6% of teachers are at intermediate (55.1%) and advanced (34%) levels, showing that they have no difficulties in using digital technologies in teaching and learning processes, either in terms of promoting student interaction and monitoring or in promoting collaborative learning strategies.
On the other hand, 10.2% of teachers are still at the initial levels, as they have some difficulties in using digital technologies to promote pedagogical practices based on interaction and collaborative learning.
A closer reading of the answers to the questions in this dimension allows us to realize that most teachers use digital technologies to systematically improve the teaching and learning process, and about 25% reveal that they seek to implement innovative strategies. As an online institution, it is natural for teachers to monitor student activities in the different collaborative environments of the networked digital ecosystem. It should also be noted that most of the teachers surveyed encourage students to use digital technologies to carry out group work. In turn, regarding the implementation of active methodologies in their practices, it appears that about 90% use digital technologies to develop these active methodologies.
Finally, approximately 80% of teachers actively promote learning activities involving students’ creation of digital content, like videos, audio, photos, digital presentations, blogs or wikis, within their curricular units. This reflects the recurring use of digital technologies by teachers and the ample opportunities provided to students for content creation using these tools. Hence, digital technologies are not just mediums for information dissemination but potent pedagogical resources that enrich and enhance online educational practices.
Contrary to the results of most of the studies carried out in this field of teacher digital competences, Area 4—Assessment (
Figure 7), shows much higher levels of proficiency than other research [
9,
10].
In fact, and despite presenting lower values than the other areas under analysis, 76.6% of the teachers in the sample are at an intermediate (42.1%) and advanced (34.5%) level of digital proficiency, with teachers revealing that they frequently and effectively use digital tools to plan, implement and evaluate educational processes.
On the other hand, 23.4% of the teachers at the initial levels (A1 and A2) make incipient use of technologies in assessment strategies.
From the analysis of the responses in this dimension, it stands out that more than 80% of teachers use different software and digital technologies to check student progress and provide more efficient feedback.
Considering that this analysis is carried out with teachers who work exclusively in virtual environments and who use digital assessment software, it is not surprising that these values are higher than the values present in most of the studies available in this area; however, it would be expected that the percentage of teachers positioned at level A would be even lower, since digital assessment is an intrinsic and indispensable component of the institution’s virtual pedagogical model. Finally, regarding the promotion of learning activities that imply the creation of digital content by students, such as videos, audio, photos, digital presentations, blogs or wikis, about 80% of the teachers reported they promote this type of activity in their curricular units. It can be seen, therefore, that teachers use digital technologies regularly and, in most curricular units, students have the possibility to create new content using these technologies. In essence, digital technologies are not simply employed as a medium for information dissemination, but are harnessed as powerful pedagogical resources that enrich and enhance online educational practices.
In area 5—Empowering Learners (
Figure 8), 77.5% of teachers position themselves at intermediate (43%) and advanced (34.5%) levels, with practices that favor accessibility and inclusion to promote active and collaborative learning methodologies that place students at the center of these practices. Only 21.5% of teachers are at the initial levels, and although they also seek to promote the strengths present in the virtual pedagogical model, interaction and inclusion, they have more difficulty in developing these practices that place the student at the center of the teaching and learning process.
Reading the answers in this dimension, we also realize that most teachers analyze the available information regularly to identify students who need additional support. Of these, more than 75% also do so during the teaching and learning process, while 20% only analyze relevant academic information, for example, on performance and grades. Most lecturers, about 90%, also tried to solve the problems identified by students related to the activities in digital format. The answers to the questions in this dimension point to an active and monitoring participation of the teacher during the teaching and learning process.
Area 6-Facilitating Learners’ Digital Competence (
Figure 9), is the one in which we find lower values of digital proficiency, with 38.3% of teachers positioned at the initial levels, mainly at the newcomer level (A1), that is, they develop few strategies to promote students’ digital competences. Teachers who are at intermediate levels represent 46.7% of the sample, and they promote strategies for the development of these skills, encouraging content creation and digital problem solving. Finally, 15% of teachers are at advanced levels, being able to promote students’ digital competences critically and innovatively, strengthening their autonomy and security in the use of digital technologies.
By reading the answers in this dimension, we also realize that most teachers, about 60%, discuss the quality of information, seeking to help students distinguish between possible reliable and unreliable sources. It is also interesting to realize that few teachers work on the issue of online safety, only 23%, because most of them say it is not their responsibility. It is noteworthy that only 20% of teachers encourage students to use digital technologies creatively to solve concrete problems, stating that the opportunity to do so does not always arise. Here, one can question whether the use of the traditional paper-based assessments or exam at the UAb is hampering the more creative use of digital software to realize the assessment process.
Continuing the statistical analyses, the results of the general diagnosis are presented below, cross-referencing them with the variables describing the teachers’ profiles. In order to identify significant differences between the dimensions of the digital competence areas (A1 to A6), the Kruskal–Wallis test (followed by Pairwise tests with Bonferroni correction) was used to compare the value of the scores, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The same approach was taken for the general diagnosis score. Variables related to the profile of the respondents were compared: age group, gender, time of teaching, time of use of technologies and virtual environments and organic unit.
In the general diagnosis of digital competences (
Table 3), stratified by age group, it is interesting to note that the highest concentration of teachers is found at levels B2 (Expert) and C1 (Leader), with emphasis on the 40 to 49 age group, with a value of 43.8% at level B2, and for the 50 to 59 age group a value of 36.7%. In addition, the youngest teachers (30 to 39) have lower levels of proficiency, with a higher incidence at level A2 (Explorer) and the oldest teachers (60 years or older) have a value of 14.3% at level C2 (Pioneer), higher than the other bands at this level.
In the general diagnosis of digital competences (
Table 4), stratified by gender, the results are very similar; however, the male gender presents slightly higher values concerning the two levels of higher digital proficiency (C1 and C2), 38.8% and 29.3%, respectively. The Kruskal–Wallis test also shows that the distribution of the score for Area 2 (Digital Technologies and Resources) reveals statistically significant differences between genders, with a higher score for males (
p = 0.003).
The description of the levels of digital competences (
Table 5), taking as a parameter the time teaching, also shows that teachers with more time in service (more than 36 years) are the ones with the highest percentage values, being at the advanced level C1 with a value of 66.7%, and at the intermediate level B2 the teachers with 5 to 10 years of service (66.7%) and 11 to 15 years of service (50%) have the highest values. Once again, these results are “out of line” with other studies.
In the evaluation of the general diagnosis (
Table 6), based on the time spent using digital technologies and virtual environments in teaching and learning activities, the previous pattern of the highest concentration of teachers at advanced level C1 is repeated, that is, the highest values were obtained by teachers who have been using digital for more than 14 years.
As might be expected, teachers with fewer years of incorporating digital into their practices obtained lower results, being placed at levels A and B, with none at level C, and only teachers who have been using digital for more than 14 years being placed at level C2. The analysis also shows that the distribution of the general diagnostic score reveals statistically significant differences between time of use of technologies (
p < 0.001), 1 to 3 years versus more than 16 years, and between 11 and 13 years versus more than 16 years, with the group of more than 6 years presenting higher scores (
Figure 10).
Regarding the distribution by areas, the score for Area 4 (Assessment) shows that there are statistically significant differences between time of use of technologies (
p = 0.003), 11 to 13 years versus 14 to 16 years, and between 7 and 10 years versus 14 to 16 years, with higher times of use having higher scores (
Figure 11).
In Area 5, the distribution of the score (Empowering Learners) reveals that there are statistically significant differences between time of use of technologies (
p = 0.004), 1 to 3 years versus more than 14 years, and between 11 and 13 years versus more than 16 years, with higher times of use having higher scores (
Figure 12).
Finally, the distribution of the score for Area 6 (Promoting Students’ Digital Competence) reveals that there are statistically significant differences between time of use of technologies (
p = 0.047), 11 to 13 years versus more than 16 years, that the latter of which presents a higher score (
Figure 13).
When describing the general diagnosis of digital competences by organic unit (
Table 7), the pattern is repeated once again, with the highest concentration of teachers at the advanced level C1 (Leader) being located in the departments of Science and Technology (36.1%) and Education and Distance Learning (36%), i.e., departments with teachers whose initial or postgraduate training and/or research has a direct relationship with the areas of the digital and education, namely at the level of distance education. In turn, the departments of Social Sciences and Management and Humanities also present near-identical results, with 39%, 1% and 36%, respectively, but with the highest values located one level below, at level B2 (Specialist).
In the inferential analysis of the results related to the Organic Unit, the only respondent from the Lifelong Learning Unit (UALV) was removed, considering only 106 responses.
This analysis also highlights that the distribution of the general diagnosis score and reveals statistically significant differences between the organic units (
p = 0.035), namely between DCeT and DCSG, with DCeT presenting a higher score (
Figure 14).
Regarding the distribution by areas, the score of Area 1 (Professional Engagement) reveals statistically significant differences between DCeT and DCSG, and DCSG and DEED, with DCSG presenting lower scores (
Figure 15).
In Area 2 (Digital Technologies Resources), the score distribution shows statistically significant differences between DCeT and DCSG, with DCeT having a higher score (
Figure 16).
In turn, in Area 3 (Teaching and Learning) the score distribution reveals statistically significant differences between DCeT and DCSG, and DCSG and DEED, with DCSG showing lower scores (
Figure 17).
Finally, the score distribution of Area 4 (Assessment) reveals statistically significant differences between DCeT and DCSG, and DCeT and DH, with DCeT showing higher scores (
Figure 18).