Science for Education Today, 2023, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 79–104
© Toktarova V. I., Rebko O. V., Semenova D. A., 2023
UDC: 
004+378.1+378.2

Comparative analysis of models of educators’ digital competencies in the context of digital transformation of education

Toktarova V. I. 1 (Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation), Rebko O. V. 1 (Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation), Semenova D. A. 1 (Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation)
1 Mari State University
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 994
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article focuses on analysis and evaluation of digital competence of academic staff in higher education institutions. The authors draw attention to the fact that in the conditions of digital transformation of education, the issue of educator’s competencies is becoming increasingly acute. However, currently there are no uniform standards of digital competencies, as well as their uniform definition. This determines certain difficulties in updating initial teacher education and professional development programs for educators. The purpose of this article is to identify the specifics of teachers’ digital competencies models and to illustrate their implementation in the educational practice of higher education institutions in the context of digital transformation of education.
Materials and Methods. The research is based on the provisions of competence, system, activity and environmental approaches. In order to achieve the research goal, the authors used a set of theoretical (structural-functional and content analysis, synthesis, generalization), empirical (questionnaire, survey, conversation, ranking, expert evaluation) and mathematical (mathematical statistics, mathematical modeling) methods. As part of the study, the empirical data were analyzed and summarized. The sample consisted of 573 students pursuing their degrees in the field of Education at Mari State University. In order to confirm the reliability and significance of the presented statistical data, the Pearson criterion χ2 was applied.
Results. Based on the analysis of theoretical research and educational practices, the authors analyzed the concept of ‘digital competencies’. The results of a comparative analysis of five models of digital competencies for educators (DigCompEdu, TPACK, SAMR, TDC and INTEF) are presented and described. The authors identify the common components for the above-mentioned models. They include technological, educational, cognitive, communicative, and personal ones.
Their characteristics and interrelation are considered. The authors provide data from a survey of education students at Mari State University and identify the degree of formation and development of competencies within the identified components of the generalized model. The conditions for the integration of the five-component structure of the digital competencies model into the initial teacher education are clarified using the example of the master's degree program in Digital Pedagogy within the field of Education (44.04.01).
Conclusions. Based on the data obtained, the authors identify features and specifics of implementing the models of educators’ digital competencies. They include the common core of five components within competencies and the need for their harmonious development among modern educators. The interdisciplinary nature of their formation and development in the conditions of digital transformation of education is emphasized, which is illustrated using the example of the master’s program in Digital pedagogy.

Keywords: 

Competency; Digital competencies of educators; Educators; Models of digital competences; Competence; Digital transformation of education; Digital literacy; Digital culture; Digitalization of education.

For citation:
Toktarova V. I., Rebko O. V., Semenova D. A. Comparative analysis of models of educators’ digital competencies in the context of digital transformation of education. Science for Education Today, 2023, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 79–104. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2305.04
References: 
  1. Buzykova Y. S., Gafiatulina E. S. Digital teacher competencies and their indicators. Transport Technician: Education and Practice, 2020, no. 4, pp. 278–282. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.46684/2687-1033.2020.4.278-282 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=44241652
  2. Goncharova N. Yu., Timoshenko A. I. Communicative competence of the teacher as the integral indicator of professionalism in modern conditions. Siberian Pedagogical Journal, 2009, no. 3, pp. 75–85. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=13103873
  3. Gryaznov S. A. Digital competence of the teacher. Azimuth of Scientific Research: Pedagogy and Psychology, 2021, no. 10, pp. 79–81. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.26140/anip-2021-1002-0016 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=46325252
  4. Soldatova G. U., Rasskazov S. G. Models of digital competence and online activity of Russian adolescents. National Psychological Journal, 2016, no. 2, pp. 50–60. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.11621/npj.2016.0205 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=27536970
  5. Toktarova V. I., Rebko O. V. Structural and functional model of the development of digital culture competencies of future educators. Pedagogical Review, 2022, no.6, pp. 18–27. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.23951/2307-6127-2022-6-18-27 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=49836594
  6. Shmelkova L. V. Personnel for the digital economy: A look into the future. Vocational Education and Training in Russia and World-Wide, 2016,no. 8, pp. 1–4. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29214609
  7. Yakovleva E. V. Digital competence of a future teacher: Component structure. Concept, 2021, no. 4, pp. 46–57. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.24412/2304-120X-2021-11021 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=45669310
  8. Adulyasas L. The use of learning community incorporating with lesson study in teaching and learning mathematics through TPACK and SAMR model: The effects on students’ mathematics achievement. Psychology and Education Journal, 2021, vol. 58 (1), pp. 1708–1711. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17762/pae.v58i1.971 
  9. Angeli C., Valanides N. Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 2009, vol. 52 (1), pp. 154–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006

10. Arantes J. The SAMR model as a framework for scaffolding online chat: A theoretical discussion of the SAMR model as a research method during these ‘interesting’ times. Qualitative Research Journal, 2022, vol. 22 (3), pp. 294–306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-08-2021-0088 

11. Babaev D., Saipidinova B., Babaeva A., Alieva B., Abdullaeva Z. Information and communicative competence development in prospective teachers. Creative Education, 2020, vol. 11 (12), pp. 2867–2875. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2020.1112212

12. Cabero-Almenara J., Gutiérrez-Castillo J. J., Palacios-Rodríguez A., Barroso-Osuna J. Comparative European DigCompEdu framework (JRC) and common framework for teaching digital competence (Intef) through expert judgment. Texto Livre: Linguagem e Tecnologia, 2021, vol. 14 (1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.35699/1983-3652.2021.25740 

13. Cabero J., Palacios A. Marco europeo de competencia digital docente “digcompedu” y cuestionario “digcompedu check-in”. EDMETIC: Revista De Educación Mediática y TIC, 2020, vol. 9 (1), pp. 213–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v9i1.12462

14. Caena F., Redecker C. Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European digital competence. Framework for educators (DigCompEdu). European Journal of Education, 2019, vol. 54 (3), pp. 356–369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12345

15. Falloon G. From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2020, vol. 68 (5), pp. 2449–2472. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4 

16. Feerrar J. Development of a framework for digital literacy. Reference Services Review, 2019, vol. 47 (2), pp. 91–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr-01-2019-0002 

17. Fuchs C. The ethics of the digital commons. Digital Ethics, 2022, pp. 45–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003279488-4 

18. Gallego-Arrufat M. J., Torres-Hernández N., Pessoa T. Competence of future teachers in the digital security area. Center for Open Science, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hgxwn 

19. Giangiulio Lobo A., Lara Jiménez R. Evaluating basic grammar projects, using the SAMR model (La Evaluación de Proyectos de Gramática Básica según el Modelo Samr). LETRAS, 2017, vol. 1 (61), pp. 123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15359/rl.1-61.5 

20. Ivanović Đ., Simović V. DigComp: Methodological Frame for measuring digital competencies. Trendovi u poslovanju, 2020, vol. 8 (1), pp. 83–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/trendpos2001083i 

21. Janssen J., Stoyanov S., Ferrari A., Punie Y., Pannekeet K., Sloep P. Experts’ views on digital competence: Commonalities and differences. Computers & Education, 2013, vol. 68, pp. 473–481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.008

22. Kimmons R., Hall C. How useful are our models? Pre-service and practicing teacher evaluations of technology integration models. Tech Trends, 2018, vol. 62 (1), pp. 29–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0227-8

23. Kloos C. D., Alario-Hoyos C. Educational pyramids aligned: Bloom's taxonomy, the DIGCOMPEDU framework and instructional designs. 2021 World Engineering Education Forum/Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF/GEDC), 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/weef/gedc53299.2021.9657335 

24. Koh J. H., Chai C. S., Tsai C. C.  Examining practicing teachers' perceptions of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) pathways: A structural equation modeling approach. Instructional Science, 2013, vol. 41 (4), pp. 793–809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9249-y 

25. Lim C., Chai C., Churchill D. A framework for developing pre-service teachers’ competencies in using technologies to enhance teaching and learning. Educational Media International, 2011, vol. 48 (2), pp. 69–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2011.576512

26. Mishra P., Koehler M. J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 2006, vol. 108 (6), pp. 1017–1054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x 

27. Mishra P., Mehta R. What we educators get wrong about 21st-century learning: Results of a survey. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 2017, vol. 33 (1), pp. 6–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2016.1242392

28. Montag C., Diefenbach S. Towards homo digitalis: Important research issues for psychology and the neurosciences at the dawn of the internet of things and the Digital Society. Sustainability, 2018, vol. 10 (2), pp. 415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020415 

29. Nair R. S., Chuan T. C. Integrating technology that uses modified SAMR model as a pedagogical framework in evaluating learning performance of undergraduates. The Educational Review. USA, 2021, vol. 5 (10), pp. 373–384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26855/er.2021.10.001 

30. Ndongfack M. TPACK constructs: A sustainable pathway for teachers’ professional development on technology adoption. Creative Education, 2015, vol. 06 (16), pp. 1697–1709. DOI: http://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.616171

31. Öhman C., Watson D. Digital ethics: Goals and approach. Digital Ethics Lab Yearbook, 2019, pp. 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17152-0_1 

32. Ovcharuk O. Prospects for the development of the digital competence reference framework digcomp 2.2. Comparative and International Education – 2021: Education Innovations in the context of European Integration and Globalisation, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32405/978-966-97763-9-6-2021-219-220 

33. Ottestad G., Kelentrić M., Guðmundsdóttir G. Professional digital competence in teacher education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 2014, vol. 9 (4), pp. 243–249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2014-04-02

34. Scherer R., Tondeur J., Siddiq F., Baran E. The importance of attitudes toward technology for pre-service teachers' technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge: Comparing structural equation modelling approaches. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.003

35. Sindi Alivi J. A review of Tpack and SAMR models: How should language teachers adopt technology? Journal of English for Academic and Specific Purposes (JEASP),2019, vol. 2 (2), pp. 2–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18860/jeasp.v2i2.7944 

36. Tang L., Gu J., Xu J. Constructing a digital competence evaluation framework for in-service teachers’ online teaching. Sustainability, 2022, vol. 14 (9), pp. 5268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095268 

37. Tunjera N., Chigona A. Teacher educators' appropriation of TPACK-SAMR models for 21st century pre-service teacher preparation. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 2020, vol. 16 (3), pp. 126–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2020070110 

38. Valtonen T., Sointu E., Kukkonen J., Kontkanen S., Lambert M. C., Mäkitalo-Siegl K. TPACK updated to measure pre-service teachers’ twenty-first century skills. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, vol. 33 (3), pp. 15–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3518

Date of the publication 31.10.2023