Digital competence among 1st and 4th year primary education undergraduate students: a comparative study of face-to-face and on-line teaching

Abstract

Digital competence (DC) has become a key element for future teachers in the effort to guarantee a high-quality education system that responds to the needs of the 21st century. For this reason, numerous studies have tried to evaluate the DC of university students in education degrees, although very few have focused on the differences according to the academic year or the methodology used. This study aims to determine the level of DC among 1st and 4th year Primary Education undergraduates at two Spanish universities that employ different learning methods (face-to-face and online). The sample comprised 396 undergraduates who completed an online instrument (with a 10-point response scale) called the Higher Education Student Digital Competence Questionnaire (CDAES). The results reveal that students’ level of DC upon graduation is basic-intermediate and that the dimensions in which they are most proficient are ‘Digital Citizenship’ and ‘Innovation’. Despite this, however, the tasks performed to justify this level are basic. The results also indicate that students’ DC improves as they progress in their degree and that the online method seems to be more effective in promoting this particular competency. We can therefore conclude that tasks specially designed to improve DC are included in teacher training degrees, particularly in the case of online courses, although we are unable to determine which specific practices or methodologies foster better outcomes. To clarify this, new empirical approaches that focus on these aspects are required, along with specific improvement actions or initiatives adapted to the needs of each individual group.

Full text

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12828-3
Abstract
Digital competence (DC) has become a key element for future teachers in the ef-
fort to guarantee a high-quality education system that responds to the needs of the
21st century. For this reason, numerous studies have tried to evaluate the DC of
university students in education degrees, although very few have focused on the
dierences according to the academic year or the methodology used. This study
aims to determine the level of DC among 1st and 4th year Primary Education
undergraduates at two Spanish universities that employ dierent learning methods
(face-to-face and online). The sample comprised 396 undergraduates who complet-
ed an online instrument (with a 10-point response scale) called the Higher Educa-
tion Student Digital Competence Questionnaire (CDAES). The results reveal that
students’ level of DC upon graduation is basic-intermediate and that the dimensions
in which they are most procient are ‘Digital Citizenship’ and ‘Innovation’. Despite
this, however, the tasks performed to justify this level are basic. The results also
indicate that students’ DC improves as they progress in their degree and that the
online method seems to be more eective in promoting this particular competency.
We can therefore conclude that tasks specially designed to improve DC are included
in teacher training degrees, particularly in the case of online courses, although we
are unable to determine which specic practices or methodologies foster better
outcomes. To clarify this, new empirical approaches that focus on these aspects are
required, along with specic improvement actions or initiatives adapted to the needs
of each individual group.
Keywords Digital competence · Primary education · Teacher training · Higher
education · Initial training
Received: 15 April 2024 / Accepted: 28 May 2024 / Published online: 13 June 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Digital competence among 1st and 4th year primary
education undergraduate students: a comparative study of
face-to-face and on-line teaching
EstíbalizCepa-Rodríguez1· Juan EtxeberriaMurgiondo1
Estíbaliz Cepa-Rodríguez
estibaliz.cepa@ehu.eus
1 Department of Education Sciences, Faculty of Education, Philosophy and Anthropology,
University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), 70 Tolosa Avenue, Saint Sebastian, Spain
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
1 Introduction
The 21st century will go down in history for being the era that saw the dawn of
the ‘Digital Society’. The fast, energetic spread of Information and Communica-
tion Technology (ICT) during this period has had a direct, progressive impact on
the way in which people all over our rapidly-changing, increasingly digitised and,
consequently, globalised world study, work, live together and interact (Basilotta et
al., 2022; Silva & Morales, 2022). In the eld of education, the swift growth of
digital resources has called both the policies and infrastructure that underpin schools
into question (Colomo et al., 2023; Fernández-Batanero et al., 2021). This in turn
has prompted a gradual transformation in several fundamental aspects of the teach-
ing-learning (T-L) process, including targets, the curriculum, paradigms, resources,
contents, techniques, assessment and, most particularly, the relationship between
teachers and their students (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2020; Gros & Silva, 2005). In
this scenario, students are no longer mere recipients of contents, but rather active,
independent subjects aware of their responsibility in terms of promoting less clas-
sical and more innovative T-L processes (Pertusa-Mirete, 2020), with the support of
educational technologies (Garcés-Prettel et al., 2014).
Consequently, the extant literature emphasises the importance of preparing stu-
dents (Romero-Tena et al., 2020), existing teachers or educational stakeholders
(Fernández-Miravete & Prendes-Espinosa, 2022; Inamorato et al., 2023) and future
teachers (Aguilar et al., 2022; Colomo et al., 2023; Girón-Escudero et al., 2019) to
respond to the new ‘demands of the script’ in life, at school and in the labour market
(Inamorato et al., 2023). In other words, previous studies underscore the need to train
all those involved in teaching to become more digitally competent in order to enable
them to transform and improve education (Basilotta et al., 2022). This approach has
become particularly popular since the European Commission (2007, 2018) began
arguing that ‘Digital Competence’ is a basic cross-cutting competence that citizens
in general and educational stakeholders in particular (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2021)
should develop in order to respond to the demands of an increasingly changeable and
interconnected society and education system (Romero-García et al., 2020; Silva &
Morales, 2022).
1.1 Areas or dimensions of digital competence
Digital Competence (DC) encompasses knowledge, skills, attitudes and awareness
(Ferrari, 2012) that foster the ‘condent, critical and responsible use of, and engage-
ment with, digital technologies for learning, at work, and for participation in society’
(European Commission, 2018). In this sense, DC in the educational eld encom-
passes a set of skills, abilities, strategies and aptitudes that foster the fruitful, ecient,
critical, responsible, safe, creative, autonomous, inclusive, ethical and eective inte-
gration of ICT and the digital media into teaching, learning, design, problem-solving,
research, assessment and interaction practices in the school environment (Rodríguez-
García et al., 2019; Romero-Tena et al., 2021). In sum, DC is a multidimensional,
comprehensive competence that covers a range of dierent independent yet comple-
mentary areas (literacy, access to information, multimedia creation, collaboration,
1 3
24882
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
safety and ethics) (Gutiérrez-Castillo et al., 2017; Pozo-Sánchez et al., 2020) that
may be improved or developed (Fernández-Miravete & Prendes-Espinosa, 2022) in
order to both design virtual learning environments and participate in them (Gros &
Silva, 2005).
Many dierent national and international standards and reference models have
arisen in this scenario (Mattar et al., 2022) with the aim of establishing the prior-
ity areas or dimensions of digital competence that should be fostered among stu-
dents and teachers (Basilotta et al., 2022; Jiménez-Hernández et al., 2020). The most
important of these are outlined in Table 1.
These models and indicators have in turn prompted diverse studies aimed at devel-
oping instruments for assessing DC (Gabarda et al., 2020; Jiménez-Hernández et al.,
2020), establishing six levels for measuring this construct: beginner (A1), explorer
(A2), integrator (B1), expert (B2), leader (C1) and pioneer (C2) (Romero-Tena et al.,
2020; Gutiérrez-Castillo et al., 2017). At the same time, a concerted eort has been
made to develop training programmes to improve the DC of both students and teach-
ers (Inamorato et al., 2023). However, although prociency in the use of ICT is vital
to improving education and reducing the digital divide -one of the greatest challenges
in terms of ensuring, in accordance with that stated in the 2030 Agenda, ‘inclusive
and equitable quality education’ and promoting ‘lifelong learning opportunities for
all’ at all levels of the education system (Spanish Government, 2015, p. 28)- empiri-
cal research to date has focused mainly on DC in pre-university stages (Basilotta et
al., 2022). Given that the empirical-academic activities carried out in the university
environment constitute an ideal framework for acquiring DC (Romero-Tena et al.,
2021) and that future teachers (i.e., undergraduate trainee teachers) are, from a holis-
tic perspective, agents of change (García-Correa et al., 2022) with a pivotal role (Gao
et al., 2024) in the transmission of DC (Moreno-Rodríguez et al., 2018), increasing
attention is currently being paid to determining and responding to their digital needs.
Table 1 National and international frameworks for digital competence
Framework and institution Dimensions proposed
UNESCO’s ICT Competency Frame-
work for Teachers (2018)
This standard establishes 18 competencies linking three
levels of educational use (acquire, deepen and create
knowledge) with six aspects of teaching practice: (1)
Understanding ICT in education, (2) Curriculum and as-
sessment, (3) Pedagogy, (4) Application of DC, (5) Organ-
isation and administration, and (6) Professional learning.
ISTE Standards published by the
International Society for Technology
and Education (ISTE, 2023)
(1) ICT Functioning and Concepts, (2) Research and
Information Processing, (3) Critical Thinking, (4) Com-
munication and Collaboration, (5) Digital Citizenship, and
(6) Creativity and Innovation.
The European Commission’s Euro-
pean Framework for the Digital Com-
petence of Educators (DigCompEdu)
(Redecker, 2017)
(1) Professional Engagement, (2) Digital Resources, (3)
Teaching and Learning, (4) Assessment and Feedback, (5)
Empowering Learners, and (6) Facilitating Learners’ DC.
INTEF’s Common Framework of
Digital Competence for Teachers
(INTEF, 2017)
(1) Information, (2) Communication and Collaboration,
(3) Content Creation, (4) Safety, and (5) Problem Solving.
1 3
24883
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
1.2 Digital competence among primary education undergraduate students
In the university eld, most empirical studies have assessed DC using self-
reports (Pérez-Navío et al., 2021). Research carried out with Primary Education
undergraduates has found, in general, that these trainee teachers consider them-
selves to be competent for engaging in basic activities: searches, presentation
and organisation of content in dierent formats, security and online collaboration
with educational professionals (Gallego-Arrufat et al., 2019; Moreno-Fernández
et al., 2021; Silva & Morales, 2022). However, studies also highlight the exis-
tence of diculties and a low level of training in terms of using new technologies
or specic technical skills to create and manage contents, solve problems (Basi-
lotta et al., 2022; Cabero-Almenara et al., 2021) or foster innovative educational
practices (Moreno-Rodríguez et al., 2018; Røkenes & Krumsvik, 2014).
In this context, the extant literature also reports dierences in digital skills in
accordance with aspects such as gender, academic year and learning format. In
the case of gender, the results are inconsistent. For example, Jiménez-Hernández
et al. (2020) report a gender gap, with men, in general, scoring higher than women
in all areas of DC and being eective in the use and management of information
and digital security (Gallego-Arrufat et al., 2019). In contrast, Marimon-Martí
et al. (2023) found that women scored higher than men in all dimensions, par-
ticularly in ‘advanced information search’ and ‘online collaboration’ (López-Bel-
monte et al., 2019; Pérez-Navío et al., 2021). Finally, Marín-Suelves et al. (2022)
found no gender dierences at all. The situation in relation to academic year is
totally dierent, with all studies analysing this variable unanimously arming
that undergraduates’ technological competence increases as they progress in their
degree (Marimon-Martí et al., 2023; Marín-Suelves et al., 2022; Romero-Tena et
al., 2021).
The eects of learning format (face-to-face or online) have been less widely
studied in this eld. In a comparative study with a group of students who had
to migrate during the pandemic from a face-to-face format to an online one,
Romero-Tena et al. (2021) found that this abrupt change, with no previous prepa-
ration, had a considerable negative impact on participants’ competence level and
academic development, with no dierences being detected between those who
had received specic training in digital material and those who had not. For their
part, Álvarez-Herrero (2020) argue that students and teachers who have been
trained in new technologies are better prepared and are more enthusiastic to cope
with the challenges of a changing eld in which emerging methodologies and
technologies (gamication, blended learning, design thinking, etc.) often overlap
and are transforming life in the classroom (Gao et al., 2024). The research com-
munity has, in general, begun to advocate for the need to design training plans
that contemplate or incorporate activities designed to foster the practical, critical,
intelligent and responsible use of DC, right from the very beginning (Romero-
Tena et al., 2021; Silva & Morales, 2022; Wang et al., 2023). It is therefore
important to analyse the dierences and similarities in DC among students learn-
ing in a face-to-face format and those learning online.
1 3
24884
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
1.3 General and specic aims
The general aim of the present study is to determine the level of DC among 1st
and 4th year Primary Education undergraduates at two Spanish universities that
employ dierent learning methods (face-to-face and online). The specic aims
are as follows:
A1. To analyse the level of DC among a sample of Spanish undergraduate students.
A2. To compare the level of DC in accordance with factors such as gender, academic
year and learning format.
2 Material and method
To achieve the aforementioned aims, the present study follows a quantitative, descrip-
tive, comparative and correlational design.
2.1 Participants
The questionnaire was completed by a representative sample of 396 students
(22.5% men and 77.5% women) aged between 18 and 41 years (M = 20.81;
SD = 2.33) from two public universities. The sample was recruited evenly across
the dierent academic years and universities (Year 1: n = 117 -U1- and n = 11 6
-U2-; Year 4: n = 79 -U1- and n = 84 -U2) (Table 2). In general, participants
claimed to spend over 5 h a week on their computers (83%), although in the case
of those on face-to-face courses, most (61.7%) claimed to spend between 5 and
20 h a week in front of a screen, whereas among those on online courses, most
(55%) claimed to spend over 20 h a week on their computers.
Table 2 Characteristics of the samples from the two universities
University 1 (Face-to-Face) University 2 (Online)
Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4
Data Population 150 100 170 130
Sample 117 79 116 84
Gender Male 24 16 23 26
Female 93 63 93 58
Age M(SD) 19.62(2.67) 22.27(1.24) 20.08(2.04) 22.13(1.41)
Study Language Basque 117 55 --- ---
Catalan --- --- 116 52
English --- 24 --- 32
Studies Before No 79 61 97 73
Degree 35 1 1
Professional formation 35 13 18 10
1 3
24885
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
2.2 Instruments
The data collection instrument used in the present study was a self-report ques-
tionnaire comprising a battery of sociodemographic questions and a scale adapted
and validated with future Spanish teachers: the Higher Education Student Digi-
tal Competency Questionnaire (CDAES), developed by Gutiérrez-Castillo et al.
(2017) on the basis of the indicators proposed by the ISTE (2023) and the INTEF
(2017). The questionnaire comprises 44 items rated on a 10-point scale (1 = Com-
pletely incapable; 10 = Completely capable) and measures students’ digital per-
formance in six dimensions encompassing a range of activities and situations
designed to test their ability to eectively use ICT: (1) Technological literacy
(eective use and application of ICT); (2) Information search and processing
(positive aptitudes for searching, analysing, managing, assessing and transmit-
ting information using ICT); (3) Critical thinking (digital capacity to dene, plan,
develop, apply and assess projects); (4) Communication and collaboration (apti-
tudes for collaborating and interacting on digital platforms); (5) Digital citizen-
ship (ethical, safe and responsible use of ICT); and (6) Creativity and innovation
(use of ICT tools as an innovative resource for changing and improving existing
knowledge).
Consistently with that reported by Gutiérrez-Castillo et al. (2017), the psychomet-
ric properties for the whole instrument were adequate (α = 0.96).
2.3 Procedure
The sample was recruited through lecturers teaching on the Primary Education
undergraduate degree at the two universities, who, after being informed of the
aims and procedure of the study, agreed to help disseminate the link to the Micro-
soft Forms questionnaire used to collect the data. The Microsoft Forms platform
was chosen because the Ethics Committee at the University of the Basque Coun-
try (CEISH) had identied it as the one that best guaranteed respondents’ ano-
nymity (M10_2023_178). Participation was voluntary and, before completing the
questionnaire, respondents signed an informed consent form.
Participants’ responses were rst downloaded, debugged and processed using
Microsoft Excel, before being exported to the IBM SPSS statistical package Statis-
tics 28.
2.4 Data analysis
To guarantee that the instrument was suitable for use in academic research, its
reliability was analysed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Next, to full the study aims
and answer the research questions, descriptive analyses were carried out of the
dimensions and their indicators (means and standard deviations) and a correla-
tion analysis was performed (Pearson). After the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test had
determined that the data followed a normal distribution (p ≥ .05), several com-
parative analyses were carried out (Student’s t for independent samples) and the
eect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d, in accordance with the following
1 3
24886
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
criteria: d = < 0.20 was considered to indicate no eect; d = 0.21–0.49 a small
eect, d = 0.50–0.70 a moderate eect and d = > 0.80 a large eect (Cohen, 2013).
3 Results
3.1 General digital competence in each dimension and indicator
Participants obtained a general DC score of 6.91 points, indicating a low-inter-
mediate or ‘explorer’ level (Romero-Tena et al., 2020). The least developed areas
were ‘Information search and processing’, ‘Technological literacy’ and ‘Critical
thinking’. In contrast, the most developed areas (at an ‘integrator’ level) were
‘Communication and collaboration’, ‘Digital citizenship’ and ‘Creativity and
innovation’ (Fig. 1).
Participants scored particularly highly in some basic aspects of the following sub-
dimensions or indicators: safe, legal and responsible use of information and ICT (for
example, respecting copyright) (Area-5.1: M = 7.36; SD = 1.64), understanding and
use of operating systems and browsers (Area-1.1: M = 8.11; SD = 1.88), participation
in and coordination of group activities (Area-4.4: M = 7.81; SD = 1.68) and creation
of original resources for expressing oneself (Area-6.2: M = 7.68; SD = 1.95). In con-
trast, they had diculties performing more complex tasks, such as oering construc-
tive criticism and taking on a digital leadership role (Area-5.3: M = 6.72; SD = 1.88),
researching problems and conguring systems (e.g., antivirus software, hard drives,
etc.) to solve them (Area-1.3: M = 5.33; SD = 2.39) and conguring resources, pro-
grams and processes (e.g., software, hardware) to oer alternative solutions (Area-
3.4: M = 5.13; SD = 2.21).
Fig. 1 Digital competence level in each dimension
1 3
24887
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
3.2 General digital competence in each dimension and indicator, by gender
In terms of gender, men generally scored better in all the dierent dimensions of DC,
although the dierences were not signicant (p = > 0.05). Specically, the greatest
dierences (with men scoring higher) were found in ‘Critical thinking’, although the
eect size was small (d = 0.37) (Fig. 2).
If we analyse the individual results for each indicator, we see that men were better
at conguring systems and resources to oer alternative solutions (Area-3.4: p = .001;
d = 0.70) and at resolving problems using dierent ICT systems and applications
(Area-1.3: p = .001; d = 0.47). They were also better at studying the possibilities and
limitations of ICT resources in order to make informed decisions (Area-3-3: p = .001;
d = 0.34) and at organising, assessing, summing up and using information ethically
with the help of ICT (Area-2.2: p = .001; d = 0.29), although again, the dierences
were small. For their part, women scored slightly higher for understanding and using
multiple technological systems (devices, browsers, etc.) (Area-1.1), as well as for
planning customised digital activities in order to solve problems (Area-3.2), again
with fairly small dierences.
3.3 General digital competence in each dimension and indicator, by academic
year
The results for DC by academic year revealed that students in year 4 of their Pri-
mary Education teacher training degree performed better in all areas, attaining an
intermediate or ‘integrator’ level, as opposed to the low-intermediate or ‘explorer’
level attained by 1st year students. Students in the last year of their degree scored
signicantly higher in all dimensions and indicators (p = .001), particularly ‘Commu-
nication and collaboration’, with a medium eect size (p = .001; d = 0.65). It is worth
noting, however, that both groups had the most diculty in the ‘Critical thinking’
dimension (Table 3).
Fig. 2 Comparison of digital competence levels by gender
1 3
24888
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
Table 3 Comparison of means and standard deviations in the dierent dimensions and indicators, by aca-
demic year
Variable Descriptive statistics Comparisons
Year 1
M(SD)
Year 4
M(SD)
Dif t(394) p d
1. Technological literacy 6.51(1.33)7.33(1.29)−0.82 −6.08 *−0.63
1.1.-Using ICT systems. 7.91(1.36)8.39(1.30)−0.48 −3.52 *−0.36
1.2.-Selection and eective use of
applications.
6.55(1.36) 7.40(1.26)−0.85 −6.32 *−0.65
1.3.-Research and resolution of problems
using ICT.
4.90(2.35)5.95(2.33)−1.05 −4.40 *−0.45
1.4.-Transfer of knowledge to learning with
ICT.
6.69(1.97)7.56(1.62)−0.87 −4.86 *−0.48
2. Information processing 6.69(1.28) 7.42(1.21)−0.73 −5.68 *−0.59
2.1.-Planning of strategies. 7.49(1.68) 7.88(1.54)−0.39 −2.37 .009 −0.24
2.2.-Organisation, analysis, assessment and
ethical use of information.
5.73(2.02)6.66(2.03)−0.93 −4.46 *−0.46
2.3.-Assessment and selection of digital
sources and tools.
7.30(1.51)7.89(1.33)−0.59 −3.98 *−0.41
2.4.-Data processing and communication of
results.
6.26(1.76) 7.27(1.66)−1.01 −5.76 *−0.59
3. Critical thinking 6.06(1.48)6.91(1.32)−0.85 −5.87 *−0.61
3.1.-Identication and denition of research
problems.
5.88(1.85)7.06(1.73)−1.18 −6.42 *−0.66
3.2.-Planning of activities to carry out
projects.
7.23(1.87)7.89(1.46)−0.66 −3.93 *−0.39
3.3.-Analysing data and making informed
decisions.
6.28(1.88) 7.14(1.56)−0.86 −4.91 *−0.50
3.4.-Using multiple processes to oer alterna-
tive solutions.
4.84(2.16) 5.55(2.23)−0.71 −3.18 *−0.32
4. Communication and collaboration 6.69(1.33) 7.51(1.19)−0.82 −6.29 *−0.65
4.1.-Interaction and collaboration in multiple
digital environments.
5.90(1.50)6.87(1.45)−0.97 −6.44 *−0.66
4.2.-Communication of information and ideas
in multiple formats.
7.17(1.66)7.90(1.47)−0.73 −4.64 *−0.47
4.3.-Development of a global awareness of
other cultures.
6.16(1.79)7.06(1.72)−0.90 −4.98 *−0.51
4.4.-Working in teams to produce original
work or resolve problems.
7.53(1.76) 8.20(1.46)−0.67 −4.13 *−0.41
5. Digital citizenship 6.90(1.63) 7.41(1.49)−0.51 −3.14 *−0.33
5.1.-Safe, legal and responsible use of infor-
mation and ICT.
7.17(1.68)7.64(1.56)−0.47 −2.81 0.003 −0.29
5.2.-Positive attitude to ICT. 7.01(1.93)7.60(1.81)−0.59 −3.05 0.001 −0.32
5.3.-Leadership for digital citizenship. 6.54(1.93)6.70(1.78)−0.16 −2.39 0.009 −0.09
6. Innovation and creativity 6.85(1.68) 7.45(1.64)−0.60 −3.53 *−0.36
6.1.-Generation of new ideas, products or
processes.
6.90(1.89) 7.55(1.55)−0.65 −3.77 *−0.38
6.2.-Creation of original works to express
oneself.
7.50(1.94)7.92(1.94)−0.42 −2.14 0.016 −0.22
6.3.-Identication of trends and possibilities. 6.15(2.03)6.87(1.97)−0.72 −3.52 *−0.36
Note M and SD refer to t he mean and stand ard deviation. Dif indicates dierences and p and d refer to
signicance and Cohen’s ‘d’. * indicates that all coecients are signicant at p < .0 01
1 3
24889
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
In terms of the indicators measured, as shown in Table 3, both groups scored high-
est for understanding and using dierent types of ICT (devices, operating systems,
etc.) (Area 1.1.) and lowest for conguring dierent resources (software, hardware,
etc.) to oer alternative solutions (Area 3.4.) and solving problems in diverse systems
and applications (Area 1.3). The results also revealed that inter-group dierences
(with 4th year students scoring higher) were greater in those indicators referring to
the identication and denition of signicant research problems and questions (Area
3.1: p = .001; d = 0.66), interaction using dierent media (Twitter, YouTube, etc.) and
formats (video, audio, image, etc.) (Area 4.2: p = .001; d = 0.47) and collaboration in
multidisciplinary teams to develop original projects using ICT (Area 4.4: p = .001;
d = 0.41).
3.4 General digital competence in each dimension and indicator, by learning
format
In terms of DC level by learning format, students on the online course scored sig-
nicantly higher in all dimensions than their counterparts on the face-to-face course.
Indeed, the online group achieved an intermediate or ‘integrator’ level in all areas,
as opposed to the ‘explorer’ level attained by the face-to-face group. In general,
the dimension in which both groups scored highest was ‘Innovation and creativ-
ity’ (p = .001; d = 1.01), and the dimension in which they scored lowest was ‘Critical
thinking’, although with signicant dierences (p = .001; d = 1.18) (Table 4).
If we look carefully at the dimensions and indicators shown in Table 4, we see
that the indicator for which both groups scored highest was the use of multiple ICT
resources, with online students scoring signicantly higher than their face-to-face
counterparts (Area 1.1: p = .001; d = 0.75). Similar results were found also in rela-
tion to collaborating in the development of original group projects to solve prob-
lems (Area 4.4: p = .001; d = 0.74) and creating original basic contents, with online
students scoring particularly highly for this indicator (Area 6.2: p = .001; d = 0.70).
Nevertheless, the results also reveal a lower performance level (particularly among
face-to-face students) in identication of trends and possibilities (Area 6.3: p = .001;
d = 1.01) and the use of multiple ICT tools and resources to optimise work and oer
alternative responses (Area 3:4. p = .001; d = 0.94). Moreover, both groups had dif-
culties resolving problems using dierent technological systems (decompressing a
hard drive, conguring an email account, etc.) (Area 1.3: p = .001; d = 1.85).
4 Discussion
The present study aimed to determine the DC level of a sample of Spanish undergrad-
uate trainee teachers on a Primary Education degree and to analyse the relationship
between DC and factors such as gender, academic year and learning format.
1 3
24890
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
Table 4 Comparison of means and standard deviations in the dierent dimensions and indicators, by learn-
ing format
Variable Descriptive statistics Comparisons
Face-to-
face
M(SD)
Online
M(SD)
Dif t(394) p d
1. Technological literacy 6.12(1.22) 7.56(1.12) −1.44 −12.20 *−1.23
1.1.-Using ICT systems. 7.63(1.35) 8.58(1.19) −0.95 −7.44 *−0.75
1.2.-Selection and eective use of applications. 6.24(1.27) 7.55(1.17) −1.31 −10.65 *−1.07
1.3.-Research and resolution of problems using
ICT.
4.39(2.20) 6.26(2.21) −1.87 −8.40 *−0.85
1.4.-Transfer of knowledge to learning with ICT. 6.23(1.95) 7.85(1.41) −1.62 −9.43 *−0.95
2. Information processing 6.34(1.21) 7.64(1.05) −1.30 −11.45 *−1.15
2.1.-Planning of strategies. 6.97(1.68) 8.31(1.29) −1.34 −8.84 *−0.89
2.2.-Organisation, analysis, assessment and ethi-
cal use of information.
5.40(2.04) 6.81(1.86) −1.41 −7.17 *−0.72
2.3.-Assessment and selection of digital sources
and tools.
6.95(1.48) 8.12(1.20) −1.17 −8.65 *−0.87
2.4.-Data processing and communication of
results.
6.02(1.74) 7.32(1.58) −1.30 −7.79 *−0.78
3. Critical thinking 5.65(1.39) 7.15(1.15) −1.50 −11.74 *−1.18
3.1.-Identication and denition of research
problems.
5.66(1.89) 7.05(1.62) −1.39 −7.80 *−0.79
3.2.-Planning of activities to carry out projects. 6.91(1.90) 8.09(1.34) −1.18 −7.11 *−0.72
3.3.-Analysing data and making informed
decisions.
5.84(1.77) 7.41(1.46) −1.57 −9.59 *−0.97
3.4.-Using multiple processes to oer alternative
solutions.
4.18(2.11) 6.07(1.90) −1.89 −9.38 *−0.94
4. Communication and collaboration 6.33(1.28) 7.71(1.00) −1.38 −11.91 *−1.20
4.1.-Interaction and collaboration in multiple
digital environments.
5.56(1.41) 7.03(1.33) −1.47 −10.63 *−1.07
4.2.-Communication of information and ideas in
multiple formats.
6.77(1.65) 8.15(1.27) −1.38 −9.30 *−0.94
4.3.-Development of a global awareness of other
cultures.
5.78(1.79) 7.27(1.52) −1.49 −8.93 *−0.90
4.4.-Working in teams to produce original work
or resolve problems.
7.22(1.76) 8.39(1.37) −1.17 −7.35 *−0.74
5. Digital citizenship 6.40(1.54) 7.81(1.31) −1.41 −9.77 *−0.99
5.1.-Safe, legal and responsible use of informa-
tion and ICT.
6.73(1.62) 7.98(1.42) −1.25 −8.09 *−0.82
5.2.-Positive attitude to ICT. 6.53(1.99) 7.96(1.50) −1.43 −8.01 *−0.81
5.3.-Leadership for digital citizenship. 5.94(1.78) 7.49(1.65) −1.55 −8.98 *−0.90
6. Innovation and creativity 6.33(1.68) 7.85(1.32) −1.52 −10.07 *−1.01
6.1.-Generation of new ideas, products or
processes.
6.44(1.83) 7.88(1.42) −1.44 −8.78 *−0.88
6.2.-Creation of original works to express
oneself.
7.03(2.10) 8.32(1.54) −1.29 −6.95 *−0.70
6.3.-Identication of trends and possibilities. 5.52(1.98) 7.36(1.65) −1.84 −10.08 *−1.01
Note * indicates that all coecients are signicant at p < .0 01
1 3
24891
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
4.1 Digital competence in each dimension and indicator
In relation to the rst aim, the results reveal that, in general, participants had a low-
intermediate (‘explorer’ or ‘integrator’ A2-B1) level in the dierent dimensions
assessed using the CDAES questionnaire. In other words, the results point to a lack
of training among undergraduate teacher training students. These ndings are similar
to those reported by Romero-Tena et al. (2020), who, using the same instrument,
found that students on Pre-school and Primary Education teacher training degrees
had (initially and with no specic training) a basic level of technological compe-
tence. Our results are also consistent with those reported by Basilotta et al. (2022)
and de Cabero-Almenara et al. (2021), who conrmed the existence of a notable gap
between the training received and the expectations and demands of a digital society
(Marín-Suelves et al., 2022). However, they contrast with the conclusions published
by Pinto-Santos et al. (2020) and Marimón-Martí et al. (2023), who found that stu-
dents had a high perception of their own DC.
Consistently with that observed by Silva and Morales (2022), respondents scored
highest in the ‘Communication and collaboration’ and ‘Digital citizenship’ dimen-
sions. This is also similar to that observed by Marín-Suelves et al. (2022) who, in a
sample of 230 undergraduate and postgraduate Education students, found that partici-
pants scored highest for working in interconnected teams, communicating adequately
in a variety of dierent formats, and having a high awareness of the importance of
digital security. Our results also coincide with the conclusions drawn by Pinto-Santos
et al. (2020) and Colomo et al. (2023), who highlighted the fact that future primary
school teachers performed well in aspects linked to the safe, legal and responsible use
of information, since they accepted as a basic principle in their teaching practice both
the ethical and legal use of online contents and a commitment to lifelong learning
in order to perfect their knowledge and keep abreast of new developments. Despite
this, however, the extant literature points out that even though trainee teachers have
a good knowledge of and are aware of these aspects (Gallego-Arrufat et al., 2019),
they lack the specic skills necessary to apply them online or foster their use among
learners (Romero-Tena et al., 2020). This may explain the lower scores obtained in
the more complex activities in this study. Particularly striking are the scores obtained
for ‘Creativity and innovation’, since the design and creation of teaching-learning
content or spaces (Marimón-Martí et al. 2023), the use of emerging technologies and
simulators (Colomo et al., 2023) and the establishment of innovative practices are
usually tasks in which students have been found in previous studies to have serious
gaps in their knowledge (Moreno-Rodríguez et al., 2018; Romero-Tena et al., 2020).
In contrast, the least developed areas were ‘Information search and processing’,
‘Technological literacy’ and, above all, ‘Critical thinking’. Although these ndings
are similar to those reported by Silva and Morales (2022), they dier from those
found in a large number of other studies that observed that both information search
and (especially) technological literacy (Colomo et al., 2023) are areas in which par-
ticipants tend to score highest (Moreno-Fernández et al., 2021; Pérez-Navío et al.,
2021). One possible explanation for this may be found in those studies that assert
that although future teachers have a good level in simple or instrumental skills as
applied to everyday life, they lack the ability to make use of more technical or spe-
1 3
24892
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
cialist knowledge (Basilotta et al., 2022). The scores obtained in ‘Critical thinking’
however, highlight the diculty experienced by trainee teachers when asked to iden-
tify problems or come up with alternative solutions to them using a variety of ICT
resources (Girón-Escudero et al., 2019; Romero-Tena et al., 2020).
4.2 Digital competence in each dimension and indicator, by gender, academic
year and learning format
In relation to the second aim, although the training received could be improved for
both genders, academic years and learning formats, signicant dierences were
found in relation to these variables that are worth highlighting.
In terms of gender, men scored higher in all dimensions, although the size of
the male group was notably smaller than that of the female one and the dierences
observed were not signicant, except in the case of ‘Critical thinking’ (d = 0.37).
These results are similar to those reported by Jiménez-Hernández et al. (2020) and
Pinto-Santos et al. (2020), who, unlike Marín-Suelves et al. (2022) and Marimón-
Martí et al. (2022), conrmed the existence of a gender gap, observing that men were
usually more eective in activities linked to information management, digital secu-
rity, online collaboration and content creation (Gallego-Arrufat et al., 2019; Pérez-
Navío et al., 2021).
In relation to academic year, 4th year students scored higher than their 1st year
counterparts. Consistently with that reported by Gabarda et al. (2020), who com-
pared 104 students from dierent years, our results conrm that the ‘Technological
literacy’ (d= −0.61) and ‘Communication and collaboration’ dimensions (d = − 0.65)
were the ones in which students progressed most, thereby suggesting that they are
the elds focused on most during the undergraduate degree course. The fostering of
practices that require the use of ICT in the everyday life of the classroom is directly
linked to the increase observed in students’ DC from one academic year to the next
(Romero-García et al., 2020). Indeed, empirical research holds that common prac-
tices in teacher training degrees, such as online group projects, advanced searches
for resources while respecting intellectual property, and even syllabus design may
explain the gradual improvement of these skills (Marín-Suelves et al., 2022; Romero-
Tena et al., 2020).
In relation to learning format, the results indicate that the face-to-face group
scored signicantly lower in all areas than their online counterparts, thereby conrm-
ing the association between DC and online teaching. Although this link has received
scarce empirical attention to date, training that includes new technologies seems to
be more eective in preparing future teachers for the digital world (Álvarez-Herrero,
2020). It is important to point out here that although one may be tempted to think
that these results are linked to aspects such as the use of electronic devices during the
T-L process itself, the use of an LMS (Learning Management System) to disseminate
resources or the change from physical to digital content format, previous studies have
found that it is in fact due to the establishment of dierent practices, methodologies
and challenges that test and foster students’ DC, while at the same time fostering their
contact with specic knowledge and skills linked to its dierent areas (Gutiérrez-
Porlán & Serrano-Sánchez, 2016; Romero-Tena et al., 2020).
1 3
24893
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
5 Conclusions
The results found in this study allow us to draw several conclusions. It is vital to
include specic training in ICT in the initial training of future teachers, regardless
of the learning format chosen, in order to promote and guarantee the development
of their DC beyond everyday use. As the European Commission points out (2018),
innovative training actions and activities are required right from the initial teacher
training, in order to ensure academic-personal training that is in keeping with the
demands of today’s digital society. Having a basic-intermediate level of DC is no
longer enough. It is therefore essential to provide, particularly in face-to-face degree
courses, progressive and adapted training designed to guarantee that, upon gradua-
tion, students will have an ‘expert’ level. To this end, although some studies advocate
prioritising the communication and collaboration (Silva & Morales, 2022) or the cre-
ation of digital content (Jiménez-Hernández et al., 2020), the results presented here
prompt the conclusion that it is important to work on all dimensions simultaneously.
For example, we recommend to include dierent activities, with an ever-increasing
level of complexity, to enable trainee teachers to practically, eectively and intelli-
gently develop their DC in each dierent subject. This would enable aspiring teachers
to feel fully empowered and able to use ICT to guide their students in the T-L process,
engaging in all the design, creation, collaboration, resolution and assessment activi-
ties required by their future profession.
In turn, for the eective integration of ICT in schools, i.e., to guarantee the support
and improvement of educational practice, it is crucial to focus on its pedagogic func-
tion (Basilotta et al., 2022). This involves boosting the knowledge and critical think-
ing of future teachers to enable them to identify and understand the digital resources
that best adapt to the content and methodologies used in the classroom; showing
them, for example, dierent models, such as TPACK (Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge), which enable them to explore their full potential (Garcés-
Prettel et al., 2014). In addition, Gabarda et al. (2020) highlight the importance of
incorporating ICT and DC into the teacher training curriculum, in order to enable
changes to be made to both syllabuses and subjects, since the current content taught
has remained more or less unchanged over recent decades (Silva & Morales, 2022).
Nevertheless, no information has yet been gathered regarding these factors, a gap that
future studies should seek to ll in order to enable a more comprehensive description
of the situation.
The present study has certain limitations that should be taken into consideration
when attempting to replicate or generalise the results reported here. The rst is linked
to the fact that DC was measured using a self-report instrument, although an eort
was made to mitigate its inherent lack of objectivity by taking into consideration
the scores for the individual indicators in each dimension. The second limitation is
related to the fact that the study was carried out in only two Spanish universities,
meaning that, although the sample was large enough to be representative of those two
institutions, it was not large enough to be representative of Spain as a whole.
This said, the results ratify the need to continue working on this issue. Futures
studies should strive to recruit larger and more heterogeneous samples, and may also
wish to use quantitative and, above all, qualitative techniques to analyse those factors
1 3
24894
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
that determine the DC of future teachers, with the aim of understanding the dicul-
ties they perceive during their professional practice. In this sense, it is important to
try to broaden our current knowledge of those educational methodologies and prac-
tices that are used and promoted in online courses and have a positive impact on DC.
This will enable us to dene innovative educational strategies that are adapted to the
demands of today’s digital society and can be used in face-to-face teaching. It may
also be a good idea to conduct comparative studies focused on variables such as uni-
versity access pathways, knowledge area, type of university (public or private), and
country or context, since the international literature has begun to warn of the key role
such variables may play in DC.
Acknowledgements Not applicable.
Funding Not applicable.
Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature.
Data availability The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the cor-
responding author on reasonable request.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use
is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Aguilar, Á. I., Colomo, E., Colomo, A., & Sánchez, E. (2022). COVID-19 y competencia digital: percep-
ción del nivel en futuros profesionales de la educación. Hachetetepé Revista cientíca De educación
Y comunicación, 24, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.25267/Hachetetepe.2022.i24.1102
Álvarez-Herrero, J. F. (2020). 19 de noviembre de La competencia digital del alumnado universitario de
educación ante el reto del cambio a modalidad de enseñanza online por la COVID-19. Estudio de
caso sobre la efectividad de una formación previa [Oral Communication]. VII Iberoamerican Con-
ference on Educational Innovation in the eld of ICT and TAC, Las Palmas, Spain. https://accedacris.
ulpgc.es/bitstream/10553/76543/2/La_competencia_digital_del_alumnado.pdf
Basilotta, V., Matarranz, M., Casado-Aranda, L. A., & Otto, A. (2022). Teachers’ digital competencies in
higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Education Technology in
Higher Education, 19(8), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00312-8
Cabero-Almenara, J., Barroso-Osuna, J., Palacios-Rodríguez, A., & Llorente-Cejudo, C. (2020). Mar-
cos De Competencias Digitales para docentes universitarios: Su evaluación a través del coeciente
competencia experta. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria De Formación Del Profesorado, 23(3),
17–34. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.414501
Cabero-Almenara, J., Guillén-Gámez, F. D., Ruiz-Palmero, J., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2021). Digital
competence of higher education professor according to DigCompEdu. Statistical research methods
with ANOVA between elds of knowledge in dierent age ranges. Education and Information Tech-
nologies, 26, 4691–4708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10476-5
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic.
1 3
24895
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
Colomo, E., Aguilar, Á. I., Cívico, A., & Colomo, A. (2023). Percepción De Futuros docentes sobre su
nivel de competencia digital. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria De Formación Del Profesorado,
26(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.542191
European Commission (2018). DigComp 2.1. Marco de Competencias Digitales para la Ciudadanía.
https://www.aupex.org/centrodocumentacion/pub/DigCompEs.pdf
European Commission (2007). Un planteamiento europeo de la alfabetización mediática en el entorno
digital. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/ES/TXT/?uri=URISERV:l24112
Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Román-Graván, P., Montenegro-Rueda, M., López-Meneses, E., & Fernández-
Cerero, J. (2021). Digital teaching competence in higher education: A systematic review. Education
Sciences, 11(11), 689. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110689
Fernández-Miravete, Á. D., & Prendes-Espinosa, M. P. (2022). Evaluación Del proceso de digitalización
de un centro de Enseñanza secundaria con la herramienta SELFIE. Contextos Educativos, 30, 99–116.
https://doi.org/10.18172/con.5357
Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. European Commission.
https://op.europa.eu/es/publication-detail/-/publication/2547ebf4-bd21-46e8-88e9-f53c1b3b927f/
language-en Joint Research Centre (JRC).
Gabarda, V., Marín, D., & Romero, M. M. (2020). La Competencia digital en la formación inicial docente.
Percepción De Los estudiantes de magisterio de la Universidad De Valencia. Ensayos: Revista De La
Facultad De Educación De Albacete, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.18239/ensayos.v35i2.2176
Gallego-Arrufat, M. J., Torres-Hernández, N., & Pessoa, T. (2019). Competence of future teachers in the
digital security area. Comunicar, 61, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.3916/c61-2019-05
Gao, Y., Wang, Q., & Wang, X. (2024). Exploring EFL University teachers’ beliefs in integrating ChatGPT
and other large Language models in Language Education: A study in China. Asia Pacic Journal of
Education, 44(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2024.2305173
Garcés-Prettel, M., Cantillo, R. R., & Ávila, D. M. (2014). Transformación pedagógica Mediada Por
tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC). Saber Ciencia Y Libertad, 9(2), 217–228.
https://doi.org/10.18041/2382-3240/saber.2014v9n2.2352
García-Correa, M., Morales-González, M. J., & Gisbert, M. (2022). El Desarrollo De La Competencia
Digital Docente en Educación Superior. Una revisión sistemática de la literatura. RiiTE Revista
Interuniversitaria De Investigación en Tecnología Educativa, 13, 173–199. https://doi.org/10.6018/
riite.543011
Girón-Escudero, V., Cozar-Gutierrez, R., & Somoza, G. C., J.A (2019). Análisis De La autopercepción
Sobre El Nivel De Competencia digital docente en la formación inicial de maestros/as. Revista Elec-
trónica Interuniversitaria De Formación Del Profesorado, 22(3), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.6018/
reifop.22.3.373421
Gros, B., & Silva, J. (2005). La formación Del profesorado como docente en Los espacios virtuales de
aprendizaje. Revista Iberoamericana De Educación, 36(1), 1–13.
Gutiérrez-Castillo, J. J., Cabero-Almenara, J., & Estrada-Vidal, L. I. (2017). Diseño y validación de un
instrumento de evaluación de la competencia digital del estudiante universitario. Revista Espacios,
38(10).
Gutiérrez-Porlán, I., & Serrano-Sánchez, J. (2016). Evaluation and development of digital competence in
future primary school teachers at the University of Murcia. Journal of New Approaches in Educa-
tional Research, 5(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2016.1.152
Inamorato, A., Chinkes, E., Carvalho, M. A., Solórzano, C. M., & Marroni, L. S. (2023). The digital com-
petence of academics in higher education: Is the glass half empty or half full? International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00376-0
Marco Común de Competencia Digital Docente. Ministerio INTEF, & de Educación (2017). Cultura y
Deporte. https://aprende.intef.es/sites/default/les/2018-05/2017_1020_Marco-Com%C3%BAn-de-
Competencia-Digital-Docente.pdf
ISTE (2023). Estándares ISTE: Estudiantes. https://www.iste.org/es/iste-standards
Jiménez-Hernández, D., González-Calatayud, V., Torres-Soto, A., Martínez Mayoral, A., & Morales, J.
(2020). Digital competence of future secondary School teachers: Dierences according to gender,
Age, and Branch of Knowledge. Sustainability, 12(22), 9473. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229473
López-Belmonte, J., Pozo-Sánchez, S., Fuentes-Cabrera, A., & Romero-Rodríguez, 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
1 3
24896
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
Marimon-Martí, M., Romeu, T., Usart, M., & Ojando, E. S. (2023). Análisis de la autopercepción de la
competencia digital docente en la formación inicial de maestros y maestras. Revista De Investigación
Educativa, 41(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.501151
Marín-Suelves, D., Gabarda-Méndez, V., & Ramón-Llin, J. A. (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
Mattar, J., Cabral, C., & Cuque, L. M. (2022). Analysis and Comparison of International Digital Com-
petence Frameworks for Education. Education Sciences, 12(12), 932. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci12120932
Moreno-Fernández, O., Núñez-Román, F., Solís-Espallargas, C., & Ferreras-Listán, M. (2021). La
Competencia digital del alumnado universitario de carreras vinculadas al ámbito educativo. In R.
Gillain-Muñoz, H. Gonçalves-Pinto, I. Simoes-Dias, M. Odilia-Abreu, & D. Alves (Orgs.) (Eds.),
Investigação, Práticas E contextos em Educação (pp. 85–91). Polytechnic Institute of Leiria.
Moreno-Rodríguez, M. D., Gabarda-Méndez, V., & Rodríguez-Martín, A. M. (2018). Alfabetización infor-
macional y competencia digital en estudiantes de Magisterio. Profesorado Revista De Currículum Y
Formación Del Profesorado, 22(3), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v22i3.8001
Pérez-Navío, E., Ocaña-Moral, M. T., & Martínez-Serrano, M. C. (2021). University Graduate Students
and Digital competence: Are future secondary School teachers digitally competent? Sustainability,
13(15), 8519. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158519
Pertusa-Mirete, J. (2020). Metodologías activas: La Necesaria actualización Del sistema educativo Y La
práctica Docente. Supervisión 21, 56, 1–21.
Pinto-Santos, A. R., Pérez, A., & Darder, A. (2020). Autopercepción De La Competencia digital docente en
la formación inicial del profesorado de educación infantil. Revista Espacios, 41(18), 29.
Pozo-Sánchez, S., López-Belmonte, J., Fernández-Cruz, M., & López-Núñez, J. A. (2020). Análisis cor-
relacional de los factores incidentes en el nivel de competencia digital del profesorado. Revista Elec-
trónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 23(1), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.6018/
reifop.396741
Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for the Digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Pub-
lications Oce of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770
Rodríguez-García, A. M., Raso Sánchez, F., & Ruiz-Palmero, J. (2019). Competencia digital, educación
superior y formación del profesorado: Un estudio de meta-análisis en la web of science. Pixel-Bit
Revista De Medios Y Educación, 54, 65–82. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2019.i54.04
Røkenes, F. M., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Development of Student teachers’ Digital competence in
Teacher Education. A literature review. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9(4), 250–260. https://
doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2014-04-0
Romero-García, C., Buzón-García, O., & de Paz-Lugo, P. (2020). Improving future teachers’ Digital
competence using active methodologies. Sustainability, 12(18), 7798. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12187798
Romero-Tena, R., Barragán-Sánchez, R., Llorente-Cejudo, C., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2020). The chal-
lenge of initial training for early childhood teachers. A cross sectional study of their digital compe-
tences. Sustainability, 12(11), 4782. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114782
Romero-Tena, R., Llorente-Cejudo, C., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2021). Competencias Digitales Docen-
tes desarrolladas Por El alumnado del grado en Educación Infantil: Presencialidad vs virtualidad.
Edutec. Revista Electrónica De Tecnología Educativa, (76), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.21556/
edutec.2021.76.2071
Silva, J., & Morales, E. M. (2022). Assessing digital competence and its relationship with the socio-
economic level of Chilean university students. International Journal of Educational Technology in
Higher Education, 19(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00346-6
Spanish Government (2015). Plan de acción para la implementación de la Agenda 2030. Hacia una
Estrategia Española de Desarrollo Sostenible. https://www.mdsocialesa2030.gob.es/agenda2030/
documentos/plan-accion-implementacion-a2030.pdf
UNESCO (2018). Marco de competencias de los docentes en materia de TIC UNESCO. https://unesdoc.
unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000371024
Wang, Q., Sun, F., Wang, X., & Gao, Y. (2023). Exploring undergraduate students’ Digital Multitask-
ing in Class: An empirical study in China. Sustainability, 15(13), 10184. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su151310184
1 3
24897
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Education and Information Technologies (2024) 29:24881–24898
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional aliations.
1 3
24898
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com