Validación de constructo de un instrumento para medir la competencia digital docente de los profesores (CDD)

  1. Javier Tourón 1
  2. Deborah Martín 1
  3. Enrique Navarro Asencio 2
  4. Silvia Pradas 1
  5. Victoria Iñigo 1
  1. 1 Universidad Internacional de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad Internacional de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/029gnnp81

  2. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revue:
Revista española de pedagogía

ISSN: 0034-9461,  2174-0909

Année de publication: 2018

Volumen: 76

Número: 269

Pages: 25-54

Type: Article

DOI: 10.22550/REP76-1-2018-02 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

D'autres publications dans: Revista española de pedagogía

Dépôt institutionnel: lock_openAccès ouvert Editor

Résumé

Teachers’ digital competencies have become an essential aspect of training teachers to promote learning in their students that moves away from the knowledge transfer model and moves towards a talent development model. This work validates an instrument developed by the authors to evaluate the digital competency of teachers, in accordance with the current framework established by INTEF. A sample of 426 teachers was used in the validation process. These were approached through an online process. The total reliability of the instrument, estimated using Cronbach’s alpha, is 0.98. The reliability for the dimensions on the ‘Knowledge’ scale varies from 0.89 to 0.94 and for the ‘Use’ scale from 0.87 to 0.92. The construct validity has been modified from an initial model with 5 factors to another with 4 factors and 4 sub‑factors. The factor loads of the items with the dimension to which they belong are mainly above 0.5 and in many cases above 0.70. On the ‘Knowledge’ scale there is only 1 weight that does not reach this value. The overall fit results for both scales show optimum results, with values lower than 3 for the normalised chi‑squared index, values below 0.06 in RM‑ SEA, and values of 0.9 in IFI and CFI. Data is also provided regarding convergent and discriminant validity that is significant and acceptable. The construct reliability for the con‑ vergent validity in all cases approaches 0.90. As for the discriminant validity, the proposed model is better than the alternatives, with small variations in the ‘Use’ scale that will be the object of future analyses. This instrument will make it possible to evaluate teachers’ competencies and help with the planning of personalised training pathways depending on their results.

Références bibliographiques

  • Álvarez Rojo, V. (2010). Evaluación de competencias en la Universidad. Material del curso «Evaluación de competencias en el proceso de enseñanza aprendizaje». Secretariado de Formación y Apoyo a la Calidad, Universidad de Granada.
  • American Psychological Association (1986). Stan‑ dards for Educational and Psychological Testing: Six Reviews. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 83-98.
  • Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6 Structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate Software.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS (2ª Ed.). New York: Routledge.
  • Cardona, A. J. (2008). Formación y desarrollo profesional del docente en la sociedad del conoci‑ miento. Madrid: Ed. Universitas.
  • Catell, R. B. (1964). Validity and reliability: a pro‑ posed more basic set of concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 1-22.
  • Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis. New York: Plenum.
  • Comisión Europea (2001). Basic indicators on the incorporation of ITC into European Education Sys‑ tems: 2000-01 Annual Report. Bruselas: Eurydice.
  • Comisión Europea (2009). Marco estratégico Edu‑ cación y Formación 2020 (ET2020). Euridyce España. Recuperado de http://www.mecd.gob. es/educacionmecd/mc/redie‑eurydice/prioridadeseuropeas/et2020.html
  • Comisión Europea (2016). Education and training. Monitor 2016. Portugal. Recuperado de https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/monitor2016pt_en.pdf
  • Cope, C. H. y Ward, P. (2002). Integrating learning technology into classrooms: The importance of teachers’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 5 (1), 67‑74.
  • Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. En R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement (2nd Ed.), (p. 143). Washington: American Council on Education.
  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Davis, N., Preston, C. y Sahin, I. (2009). ICT teacher training: Evidence for multilevel evalua‑ tion from a national initiative. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (1), 35-48.
  • Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe. Sevilla: European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
  • Fullan, M. y Donelly, K. (2013). Alive in the Swamp: assessing digital innovations in education. London: Nesta.
  • Gallego, M. J., Gámiz, V. y Gutiérrez, E. (2010). El futuro docente ante las competencias en el uso de las tecnologías de la información y comunicación para enseñar. EDUTEC, Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, 34.
  • Gaviria, J. L., Biencinto, M. C. y Navarro, E. (2009). Invarianza de la estructura de covarianzas de las medidas de rendimiento académico en estudios longitudinales en la tran‑ sición de educación primaria a secundaria. Revista de Educación, 348, 153-173.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. y Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7ª Ed.). Essex: Pearson.
  • INTEF (2017). Marco de Competencia Digital. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Ciencia y Deportes.
  • Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P. y Cain, W. (2013). What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193 (3), 13-19.
  • Mesick, S. (1980). Test Validity and the Ethics of Assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012-1027.
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Nunnally, J. C. y Bernstein, I. H, (1994). Psychometric Theory (3ª Ed.). Nueva York: McGraw-Hill.
  • OECD (2003). Education at a glance. OECD INDICATORS 2003. Paris: Organisation for Econo‑ mic Cooperation and Development.
  • Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo (2006). Re‑ comendación del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 18 de diciembre de 2006 sobre las competencias clave para el aprendizaje perma‑ nente. Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea.
  • Sangrá, A. y González-Sanmamed, M. (2004). La transformación de las universidades a través de las TIC: Discursos y prácticas. Barcelona: Ediuoc.
  • Solmon, L. C. y Wiederhorn, J. A. (2000). Progress of technology in the school: 1999. Report on 27 states. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
  • Tondeur, J., Valcke, M. y Van Braak, J. (2008). A multidimensional approach to determinants of computer use in primary education: Teacher and school characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24 (6), 494‑506.
  • Tourón, J. (2016). TPACK: un modelo para los profesores de hoy. Educación, Tecnología y Ta‑ lento. Recuperado de http://www.javiertouron. es/2016/05/tpack-un-modelo-para-los-profesores-de.html (Consultado el 18/7/2017).
  • UNESCO (2002). Information and communication technology. A curriculum for schools and programme of teacher development. Paris: UNESCO.
  • UNESCO (2003). Communiqué of the ministerial roundtable on ‘Towards Knowledge Societies’. Paris: UNESCO.
  • UNESCO (2008). ICT competency standards for teachers: Competency standards modules. Pa‑ ris: UNESCO.
  • 4 Windschitl, M. y Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39 (1), 165-205.
La source de données: Dialnet