Abstract
AbstractTeachers’ digital competence (DC) is an important condition for the effective application of technology in education. Although several DC tools have been designed, adjustments to digital education and pedagogical or professional components are still scarce. Therefore, this study aims at developing a new instrument for assessing teachers’ DC regarding their pedagogical and professional activities in the context of digital school and digital education. The study also examines the teachers’ total DC scores and explores the differences between teacher profiles on a sample of 845 teachers in primary and secondary education in Greece. The final instrument comprises 20 items allocated in six components: 1) Teaching preparation; 2) Teaching delivery & students’ support; 3) Teaching evaluation & revision; 4) Professional development; 5) School’s development; and 6) Innovating education. The PLS-SEM analysis indicated the validity and reliability of the model in respect to its factorial structure, internal consistency, convergence validity, and model fitness. The results revealed DC inefficiency among teachers in Greece. Primary school teachers reported significantly lower scores in Professional development and Teaching delivery & students support. Female teachers reported significantly lower scores in Innovating education and School's development, but they reported higher scores in Professional development. The contribution and practical implications are discussed in the paper.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Education
Reference69 articles.
1. ACARA. (2019). Digital technologies teacher self-assessment matrix. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/5069/teachers-self-assessment-matrix-dt-19062019.docx. Accessed 1 Oct 2021.
2. Almerich, G., Orellana, N., Suarez-Rodríguez, J., & Diaz-Garcia, I. (2016). Teachers’ information and communication technology competences: A structural approach. Computers & Education, 100, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.002
3. Asyraf, W. M., & Afthanorhan, B. W. (2013). A comparison of partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and covariance based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) for confirmatory factor analysis. International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology (IJESIT), 2(5), 198–205.
4. Awang, Z. (2012). Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphics. Penerbit Universiti Teknologi MARA.
5. Badiozaman, I. F. A., Segar, A. R., & Iah, D. (2021). Examining faculty’s online teaching competence during crisis: One semester on. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-11-2020-0381
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献