Adaptation of the Digital Teaching Competence Scale (DTCS) to Turkish: Reliability, validity, measurement invariance and latent mean difference tests

Abstract

There has been a growing focus in educational research on teachers’ digital teaching competence. To freshen the relevant literature, this study analyzed the factorial structure of the Turkish version of the digital teaching competence scale (DTCS). We used confirmatory factor analysis to analyze the data collected from 611 primary school teachers in Türkiye who responded to a 32-item DTCS. We also performed tests of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. After deleting three items based on the CFA results, we found an acceptable fit for a 5-factor, 29-item DTCS model, which also demonstrated an acceptable level of internal consistency for each factor and the entire scale. This study supported the measurement invariance of the 29-item DTCS, and the tests of latent mean differences indicated statistical significance in factor score differences across gender, teaching experience, school location, having a multigrade class, and daily use of the Internet. This study contributes to the literature by providing new insights into the digital teaching competence of primary school teachers through the validation of the DTCS in a culturally distinct context from those previously reported.

Keywords

• Digital teaching competence
• confirmatory factor analysis
• measurement invariance
• latent mean difference
• primary school teachers

Dijital Öğretim Yeterlik Ölçeği'nin (DTCS) Türkçeye uyarlanması: Güvenirlik, geçerlik, ölçüm değişmezliği ve gizil ortalama fark testleri

Abstract

Eğitim araştırmalarında öğretmenlerin dijital öğretim yeterliğine yönelik artan bir ilgi bulunmaktadır. Bu alanyazına güncel katkı sunmak amacıyla, bu çalışmada Dijital Öğretim Yeterliği Ölçeği’nin (DTCS) Türkçe formunun faktör yapısı incelenmiştir. Türkiye’de görev yapan 611 ilkokul öğretmeninden toplanan veriler, 32 maddelik DTCS üzerinden doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) ile analiz edilmiştir. Ayrıca, ölçme değişmezliği ve gizil ortalama farklılıklarına ilişkin testler gerçekleştirilmiştir. DFA sonuçlarına göre üç madde çıkarıldıktan sonra, beş faktörlü ve 29 maddelik DTCS modelinin kabul edilebilir uyum düzeyine sahip olduğu ve her bir faktör ile ölçeğin genelinin iç tutarlılık düzeylerinin yeterli olduğu belirlenmiştir. Çalışma, 29 maddelik DTCS’nin ölçme değişmezliğini desteklemiş ve gizil ortalama farklılıkları testleri, cinsiyet, öğretmenlik deneyimi, okulun konumu, birleştirilmiş sınıf durumu ve günlük internet kullanımı gibi değişkenlere göre faktör puanlarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklar olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu çalışma, daha önceki araştırmalardan kültürel olarak farklı bir bağlamda DTCS’nin geçerliliğini ortaya koyarak, ilkokul öğretmenlerinin dijital öğretim yeterliğine ilişkin literatüre katkılar sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Dijital öğretim yeterliği
• doğrulayıcı faktör analizi
• ölçme değişmezliği
• gizil ortalama farkı
• ilkokul öğretmenleri

References

1. Barajas, M., Boix, R., & Silvestre, S. (2005). Creating and using ICT-based learning resources in multigrade education. In C. Tsolakidis, S. Sotiriou & P. Koulouris (Eds.), Lifelong e-learning for multigrade school teachers: Proceedings of the First Workshop of the Network of Multigrade Education (NEMED)(pp.31-45). Retrieved from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/79261035/helsinki_proceedings_nemed-libre.pdf
2. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
3. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
4. Cabero-Almenara, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J. J., Barroso-Osuna, J., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2023). Digital teaching competence according to the DigCompEdu framework. comparative study in different latin american universities. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 12(2), 276-290. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2023.7.1452
5. Cabero-Almenara, J., Romero-Tena, R., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2020). Evaluation of teacher digital competence frameworks through expert judgment: The use of the expert competence coefficient. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 9(2), 275-293. Retrieved May 28, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/217617/
6. Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (Digcompedu). European Journal of Education, 54(3), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12345
7. Castañeda, L., Esteve-Mon, F. M., Adell, J., & Prestridge, S. (2022). International insights about a holistic model of teaching competence for a digital era: the digital teacher framework reviewed. European Journal of Teacher Education, 45(4), 493-512. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1991304
8. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

9. Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research And Development, 68(5), 2449-2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4
10. Finch, W. H., & French, B. F. (2015). Latent variable modeling with R. Routledge.
11. Flores, M. A. (2020). Feeling like a student but thinking like a teacher: A study of the development of professional identity in initial teacher education. Education for Teaching, 46(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1724659
12. Gana, K., & Broc, G. (2019). Structural equation modeling with lavaan. John Wiley & Sons.
13. Gao, C., Li, Z., & Zheng, L. (2023). Develop and validate a scale to measure primary and secondary teachers’ digital teaching competence. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 10763-10789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12228-z
14. Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J. J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.057.
15. Goodwin, A. L. (2020). Globalization, global mindsets and teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 42(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2019.1700848
16. Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2018). Newly qualified teachers' professional digital competence: implications for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1416085
17. Guillén-Gámez, F.D., Mayorga-Fernández, M.J., Bravo-Agapito, J. et al. (2021). Analysis of teachers’ pedagogical digital competence: identification of factors predicting their acquisition. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26, 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09432-7
18. Grande-de-Prado, M., Cañón, R., García-Martín, S., & Cantón, I. (2020). Digital competence and gender: teachers in training. a case study. Future Internet, 12(11), 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12110204
19. Hair, J. F., Blacks, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
20. Hall, R., Atkins, L., & Fraser, J. (2014). Defining a self-evaluation digital literacy framework for secondary educators: The DigiLit Leicester project. Research in Learning Technology, 22, 21440. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.21440
21. Heine, S., Krepf, M., & König, J. (2022). Digital resources as an aspect of teacher professional digital competence: One term, different definitions – a systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 3711–3738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11321-z
22. Hijón-Niera, R., Gómez-Gómez, M., Pérez-Marín, D., & Santacruz-Valencia, L. (2023). Analysis of the implementation of a framework for teachers’ digital competence in preservice teacher training. Aloma: Revista De Psicologia, Ciències De L’Educació I De L’Esport, 41(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.51698/aloma.2023.41.1.59-70
23. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
24. Iglesias-Rodríguez, A., & García-Riaza, B. (2016). A world of digital competences. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. https://doi.org/10.1145/3012430.3012570
25. Imasiku, L., Gayle, M., Bacchiocchi, M., & Kartik, M. (2022). Using online education to address the challenges of small, multigrade schools. The Journal of Adventist Education, 84(3), 19-25. Retrieved June 6, 2024 from https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pubs/4695
26. ISTE. (2017). ISTE standards for educators: A guide for teachers and other professionals. Retrieved May 28, 2024, from https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-teachers
27. Kasule, G. W., Mugizi, W., & Rwothumio, J. (2023). Digital teaching competence and lecturers self-efficacy in online classes: Insights from public universities in Uganda. Journal of the National Council for Higher Education, 10(2), 26-47. Retrieved May 28, 2024 from https://nru.uncst.go.ug/handle/123456789/9214
28. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
29. Klochko, A., & Prokopenko, A. (2023). Development of digital competence under the conditions of digitalization of education. Scientific Journal of Polonia University, 56(1), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.23856/5615
30. Krumsvik, R. J., Jones, L. E., Øfstegaard, M., & Eikeland, O. J. (2016). Upper secondary school teachers’ digital competence: analysed by demographic, personal and professional characteristics. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 11(3), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2016-03-02
31. Liesa-Orus, M., Lozano Blasco, R., & Arce-Romeral, L. (2023). Digital competence in university lecturers: A meta-analysis of teaching challenges. Education Sciences, 13(5), 508. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050508
32. Mattar, J., Ramos, D. K., & Lucas, M. R. (2022). DigComp-based digital competence assessment tools: literature review and instrument analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 10843-10867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11034-3
33. Méndez, D., Méndez, M., & Anguita, J. M. (2022). Digital teaching competence in teacher training as an element to attain sdg 4 of the 2030 agenda. Sustainability, 14(18), 11387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811387
34. OECD. (2019). A flying start: Improving initial teacher preparation systems. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/cf74e549-en
35. Pera, B., Hajdukiewicz, A., & Hodak, D. F. (2022). Digital competencies among higher education professors and high-school teachers: Does teaching experience matter? Business Systems Research Journal, 13(2), 72–95. https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2022-0016
36. Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu (JRC107466). Seville, Spain: Joint Research Centre. Retrieved May 27, 2024, from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC107466
37. Revuelta-Domínguez, F. I., Guerra-Antequera, J., González-Pérez, A., Pedrera-Rodríguez, M. I., & González-Fernández, A. (2022). Digital teaching competence: A systematic review. Sustainability, 14(11), 6428. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116428
38. Rodríguez-García, A. M., Cardoso-Pulido, M. J., De la Cruz-Campos, J. C., & Martínez-Heredia, N. (2022). Communicating and Collaborating with others through digital competence: a self-perception study based on teacher trainees’ gender. Education Sciences, 12(8), 534. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080534
39. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
40. Skantz-Åberg, E., Lantz-Andersson, A., Lundin, M., & Williams, P. (2022). Teachers' professional digital competence: An overview of conceptualisations in the literature. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2063224. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2063224
41. Soper, D. S. (2021). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models. https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/references.aspx?id=89
42. Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1086/209528
43. Taole, M. J. (2024).ICT integration in a multigrade context: Exploring primary school teacher experiences. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 9(1), 232-252. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2024.13
44. Tondeur, J., Howard, S., Van Zanten, M., Gorissen, P., Van der Neut, I., Uerz, D., & Kral, M. (2023). The HeDiCom framework: Higher Education teachers’ digital competencies for the future. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(1), 33-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10193-5
45. Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003
46. Yemchuk, T. (2022). Increasing the digital competence of the teacher by means of information and communication technologies. Academic Notes Series Pedagogical Science, 1(204), 114–119. https://doi.org/10.36550/2415-7988-2022-1-204-114-119
47. Yurkiv, Y. (2022). Information and digital competence of the teacher in the educational process online. Bulletin of Luhansk Taras Shevchenko National University, 3 (351), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.12958/2227-2844-2022-3(351)-385-394.
48. Zhao, Y., Pinto Llorente, A. M., Sánchez Gómez, M. C., & Zhao, L. (2021). The impact of gender and years of teaching experience on college teachers’ digital competence: an empirical study on teachers in gansu agricultural university. Sustainability, 13(8), 4163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084163