Technology, Knowledge and Learning

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09501-w

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’

Professional Development and Activities?

İlknur Reisoğlu1 

Accepted: 29 January 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
For the purposes of this study, teachers received collaborative and applied digital com-
petence training in creating interactive e-books. After the training, the changes in these
teachers’ perceptions of digital competencies and how teachers plan to use their experi-
ences while performing their profession were examined. Case studies provided data for the
methodological approach. Data collection tools employed included surveys, diaries, and
focus group interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed through the Wilcoxon Signed
Ranks test. Qualitative data were analyzed based on the deductive analysis method. The
study found that the training on digital competence enhanced the knowledge and skills of
the teachers, particularly in the areas of improving professional engagement, using digital
resources, organizing teaching activities, improving assessments, and empowering learn-
ers. The study found that thanks to the training and practices introduced, teachers from
various fields were able to advance organizational communications and cooperation using
digital technologies. In addition to that, they developed a variety of digital content formats
compatible with existing student requirements as well as curriculum objectives. In their
professional endeavors, the teachers planned to implement the insights they gained in offer-
ing assessment-evaluation, providing feedback to students, organizing learning-teaching
activities, and actively engaging learners via digital technologies.

Keywords  Digital competence training · Teacher · Professional development · Digital

competence · DigCompEdu

1 Introduction

The full potential of digital technologies has yet to be utilized, and for the most part, stu-
dents are unable to develop the knowledge and skills required for the creative use of digital
technologies (Redecker 2017). Therefore, developing the digital competencies of teach-
ers is essential in order to prepare students for life in general and for careers necessitating
21st-century skills (Instefjord and Munthe 2017; Starkey 2019). Various studies suggest

* İlknur Reisoğlu
ilknur.reisoglu@erdogan.edu.tr
1
Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Recep Tayyip Erdogan
University, Rize, Turkey

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 İ. Reisoğlu

that teachers who lag behind in the development of digital competencies have difficulty in
integrating digital technologies into daily educational activities (Silva et  al. 2019; Petko
2012). Teachers who have digital competencies, on the other hand, can incorporate digital
technologies as essential elements of their curricula and support the digital learning and
engagement of students (Dinçer 2018). For this reason, providing training on digital com-
petence to teachers is of paramount importance (Pettersson 2018).
Digital competence has an important role in integrating technology, pedagogy, and con-
tent (Casillas Martín et al. 2020; Tusiime et al. 2019), and it is viewed as a requirement
for a quality education environment (Maderick et  al. 2016). Also, digital competence is
thought to improve the learning and teaching process (Fernández-Batanero et  al. 2020).
Researchers suggest that teachers lacking experience in digital competence challenge the
integration of digital technologies into their educational content (Kabakci Yurdakul and
Coklar 2014; Petko 2012). It is also underlined that digitally competent teachers are able to
utilize digital technologies as a part of the teaching program that serve as a tool in student
learning and engagement (Smarkola 2008).

1.1 Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu)

Today, the digital competencies that teachers are expected to exhibit are certainly distinct
from the competencies expected from members of the wider society. Teachers inherently
function as role models in facilitating the development of the students’ digital competen-
cies by making pedagogical decisions that model how to use digital technologies and by
supporting learning opportunities for students (Krumsvik 2014). When defining a teach-
er’s digital competence, Redecker (2017) refers to teaching that facilitates active student
engagement of digital technologies in their lives and careers. Teaching of this nature
requires the development of new pedagogic practices and organizational strategies, not
merely the use of digital technologies in learning-teaching settings. Against this backdrop,
a number of distinct frameworks were proposed to determine the teachers’ digital com-
petencies (Hatlevik 2017; Krumsvik 2011; Johannesen et al. 2014; Kelentrić et al. 2018;
INTEF 2017; Ottestad et al. 2014; Ranieri and Bruni 2018). While these frameworks pro-
vide general explanations of digital competence (Instefjord and Munthe 2016), they usually
do not list distinct qualifications for being considered digitally competent (Garcia-Martin
and Garcia-Sanchez 2017).
DigCompEdu essentially provides a categorization framework for identifying educators’
digital competence (Redecker 2017). DigCompEdu was created to better understand the
knowledge and skills educators need to develop in order to integrate digital technologies
into education in a meaningful way (Caena and Redecker 2019). In the conducted stud-
ies, the Technology, Pedagogy and Education (TPACK) framework (Mishra and Koehler
2006) has also been used to understand how teachers demonstrate their digital competen-
cies in educational environments (Maderick et al. 2016; Falloon 2020). However, TPACK
focuses more on the blending of content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge related to
teaching subject to improve students’ performance (Falloon 2020). It cannot clearly explain
what teachers need to integrate technology (Kim et al. 2013). Some researchers argue that
the TPACK oversimplifies the factors related to technology integration by excluding bar-
riers, such as access to resources, training, and support (Brantley-Dias and Ertme 2013;
Yurdakul et  al. 2012). TPACK evaluates technological (T), pedagogical (P) and content
(C) knowledge components as a necessity to integrate technology into education. DigCom-
pEdu, on the other hand, is more comprehensive and takes into account that the digital

13
How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’…

competencies of educators consist of a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes and

that skills are superior to knowledge (Caena and Redecker 2019).
DigCompEdu stands out among other frameworks due to the fact that it employs a
holistic perspective towards the educators’ pedagogical knowledge and skills such as learn-
ing methods and techniques (see INTEF 2017; Kelentric et al. 2018; Redecker 2017). Dig-
CompEdu states that teaching teachers how to use digital tools and resources will not be
enough and should go beyond them (Miguel-Revilla et  al. 2020). DigCompEdu presents
six major areas of digital competence for educators involved in all levels of education, from
pre-school to college (see Fig.  1). Each area of competence, in turn, comprises of sub-
competencies, e.g., “facilitating learners’ digital competence”, and focuses on how teachers
develop digital competencies in their students. The present study focuses on only the digi-
tal competencies of teachers themselves.

1.2 Digital Competence in the Context of Teacher Training and In‑Service Trainings

Teacher training programs often fail to train the ‘teachers of future,’ with the essential digi-
tal competencies (Fernández-Batanero et  al. 2020; Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik 2018).
Since there is an inconsistency between the knowledge and skills developed by teacher edu-
cation programs and the expectations placed on in the classroom, newly graduated teachers
often experience a “reality shock” (Gudmundsdottir et al. 2014; Tondeur et al. 2017a, b).

Fig.1  DigCompEdu areas and sub-competencies (Redecker 2017)

13
 İ. Reisoğlu

This shock is a consequence of teacher training programs that focus only on certain techni-
cal skills and knowledge throughout the courses (McGarr and McDonagh 2019; Ottestad
et  al. 2014). The failure to offer practical application courses often leads to a failure to
translate theoretical knowledge into practice (Tondeur et al. 2016; Tondeur et al. 2017a).
Even though teachers play a major part in modeling the use of digital technologies, they
still need guidance to manage the process (Kopcha 2012). Indeed, Tondeur et  al. (2018)
argue that training on digital competence could serve as a major source of motivation in
terms of enabling teachers to use digital technologies in classrooms. However, develop-
ing the digital competencies of teachers requires the application of complex and different
strategies together (Howard et  al. 2019; Tondeur et  al. 2012). Teacher digital competen-
cies can be developed not only by transferring theoretical knowledge, but also by realistic
experiences for integrating digital technologies into learning-teaching processes (Hsu and
Lin 2020; Romero-García et  al. 2020; Tusiime et  al. 2019). Given this, the digital com-
petence training to be provided is expected to focus on teachers’ collaborative work with
their colleagues (Liu et al. 2015; Tondeur et al. 2012; Tusiime et al. 2019) and the devel-
opment of digital content (Tondeur et al. 2016). At this point, Lee and Lee (2014) argue
that collaborative studying with peers provides a more reassuring learning environment by
reducing failure anxiety. In the context of developing the relevant applications and tools,
studies note the importance of empowering teachers to create course materials and assess-
ments employing a variety of technologies (Agyei and Voogt 2016; Fernández-Batanero
et al. 2020; Ranieri and Bruni 2018; Tondeur et al. 2017a, b). Another point often men-
tioned is the need to support teachers in gaining digital competencies, by providing sus-
tained feedback (Ranieri and Bruni 2018; Tondeur et  al. 2018, 2012). Ellis et  al. (2020)
state that continuous, critical and practical feedback to the process is important for teachers
to gain knowledge about digital competence development. Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik
(2018), Tondeur et al. (2012) emphasize the importance of trainers serving as role models
in terms of providing motivation for more extensive use of technology. The need for face-
to-face engagement in training and education efforts is also frequently noted, particularly
for achieving in-depth learning and immediate feedback (Ranieri and Bruni 2018).

2 Research Questions

A review of studies on the digital competencies of teachers reveals a particular focus on

definitions (Johannesen et  al. 2014), frameworks (Cabero-Almenara et  al. 2020), assess-
ment of teacher digital competencies (Lázaro-Cantabrana et  al. 2019; Silva et  al. 2019),
pedagogic approaches to the development of digital competencies (Reisoğlu and Çebi
2020; Røkenes and Krumsvik 2014; Romero-García et al. 2020; Tusiime et al. 2019), dig-
ital competencies of teachers (Benali et  al. 2018; Hinojo-Lucena et  al. 2019; Krumsvik
et al. 2016; Napal-Fraile et al. 2018), and the qualities and characteristics of teacher train-
ing programs (Palacios Hidalgo et al. 2020; Seufert et al. 2018; Starkey 2019). Teachers
typically lack the knowledge and skills required to make full use of digital technologies’
potential in terms of cultivating learning-teaching activities (Kihoza et al. 2016; Lindberg
et al. 2017; Moltudal et al. 2019; Samad et al. 2016). The need for the continued training
of teachers with a view toward furthering their digital competencies even after graduation
is underlined (Kelentrić et al. 2017; Gisbert Cervera et al. 2015), noting that such training
will also contribute value in terms of solidifying the self-confidence of the teachers (Hatle-
vik 2017).

13
How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’…

The relevant literature reveals a lack of investigations into the effectiveness of the train-
ings for improving the teachers’ digital competencies, as well as determining the extent
to which the knowledge provided in those pieces of training is planned to put into prac-
tice. Conducting such a study would contribute to the field by showing how digital compe-
tence training not only develops the knowledge and skills of teachers, but also affects their
pedagogical practices. Therefore, the present study is focused on the following research
questions:

RQ1. Are there significant differences in teachers’ perceptions of digital competencies

before and after digital competence training?
RQ1 (a). Are there significant differences in teachers’ perceptions of digital com-
petencies in the Professional Engagement area before and after digital competence
training?
RQ1 (b). Are there significant differences in teachers’ perceptions of digital compe-
tencies in the Digital Resources area before and after digital competence training?
RQ1 (c). Are there significant differences in teachers’ perceptions of digital compe-
tencies in the Assessment area before and after digital competence training?
RQ1 (d). Are there significant differences in teachers’ perceptions of digital compe-
tencies in the Empowering Learners area before and after digital competence train-
ing?
RQ1 (e). Are there significant differences in teachers’ perceptions of digital compe-
tencies in the Teaching and Learning area before and after digital competence train-
ing?
RQ2. What digital competence-building activities do teachers plan to implement after
this training?
RQ2 (a). What digital competence-building activities related to the Professional
Engagement area do teachers plan to implement after this training?
RQ2 (b). What digital competence-building activities related to the Digital Resources
area do teachers plan to implement after this training?
RQ2 (c). What digital competence-building activities related to the Assessment area
do teachers plan to implement after this training?
RQ2 (d). What digital competence-building activities related to the Empowering
Learners area do teachers plan to implement after this training?
RQ2 (e). What digital competence-building activities related to the Teaching and
Learning area do teachers plan to implement after this training?

3 Method

The study employs the case study method. A case study is “an empirical inquiry that
investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the
boundaries between phenomenology and context are not clearly evident” (Yin 2009, p. 18).
The case study requires the use of different data collection tools for in-depth investigation
of the situation, event or case being addressed, and to build on previously developed theo-
retical frameworks to guide data collection and analysis (Yin 2003). In this study, the case
study method was preferred in order to examine changes of teachers’ perceptions of digital
competencies who are given digital competence training, and how teachers plan to use the

13
 İ. Reisoğlu

knowledge they have acquired during the training in their professional lives, in the scope
of DigCompEdu framework. In this context, teachers’ perceptions, thoughts and ideas were
examined in depth by using questionnaires, focus group interviews, and diaries.

3.1 Participants

The participants of the research were selected from teachers who want to participate in the
"Teachers Create Interactive E-Books" project voluntarily. A website was designed to give
specifics on the content of the digital competence training, and applications were received
through the website. Among a total of 200 teachers who wanted to participate in the pro-
ject, 24 teachers were selected according to the province, branch, age, gender, experience,
technology experience variables, and fund budget of the project. The teachers selected for
training are announced on the website. Thus, the study was conducted with 24 teachers
–8 Computer and Instructional Technologies (CEIT), 5 Science and Technology, 6 Math-
ematics, and 5 Turkish language teachers–serving in 21 provinces. 12 female and 12 male
teachers in the 24–41 age group (M=32.71, SD = 4.23) took part in the study. Among these,
5 had 1 year of professional experience: 12 had 5–10 years, and 7 had more than 10 years
of experience. The participants were coded as "P1, P2,…, P24.” It should be noted that,
due to their field of study, CEIT teachers had prior knowledge and experience in the use of
various digital technologies in the classroom. In this study, CEIT teachers were included
in order to enable the teachers of other subjects to work collaboratively with teachers who
were more experienced in digital technology and resources.

3.2 Study Design

For the purposes of the study, the teachers were provided with training on creating interac-
tive e-books, with a view toward enhancing their digital competencies. The schedule of
digital competence training is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2  The schedule of digital competence training

13
How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’…

In the training, firstly, a virtual classroom on Google Classroom was created with a view
to making it easier to share training documents with teachers. Teachers were divided into
collaborative working groups, each consisting of three teachers. The groups were designed
as to contain one CEIT teacher and two others who are from the same subjects. Later, the
teachers were informed about the message design principles taken into account in digital
material development. Each group was asked to determine 1–2 learning outcomes from the
Science, Mathematics and Turkish curricula to be taken into account in creating the inter-
active e-book contents. Teachers created scenarios (content) and storyboards (page design)
of the interactive e-books based on the determined learning outcomes by working collabo-
ratively. Ibook Author, e-book development software, was introduced to teachers. Later,
Canva, Render Forest, Camtasia, Iconfinder, Powerpoint, Easily, Snagit, Photoshop, Pow-
Toon, Book widgets tools were introduced to the teachers and how they can be used while
developing content was mentioned. The teachers designed the book covers using Canva,
they created introduction videos of the e-books with Render Forest. They created their edu-
cational videos with Camtasia, designed e-book pages using Snagit and Photoshop, devel-
oped animated presentations with PowToon. They prepared infographics and concept maps
easily. They created the games and tests to be included in the book for assessment and
evaluation using Powerpoint and Book widgets. They designed the icons to be used for
directing the readers with Iconfinder. They integrated the content and materials into the
interactive e-book according to the storyboards (e-book page designs) using Ibook Author.
During the training, the teachers did not carry out any activities with the students. For this
reason, the "Facilitating Learners digital competence" area is not the scope of this study.
The training was provided by twelve trainers in the fields of instructional technolo-
gies and science and technology. Throughout the training, the trainers provided the teach-
ers with theoretical information about content development and the features of the tools
included in the training. In addition, trainers guided teachers by examining the e-books
developed. At every step, the focus was on ensuring that the teachers working collabora-
tively in small groups put into practice the theoretical knowledge they received and that
they exchanged perspectives and ideas on how to use such skills in their fields. Throughout
the entire process, the groups were provided with continuous feedback regarding the inter-
active e-books they were developing. Each group was guided by a trainer, and all trainers
provided feedback. Then, each group was asked to present to other teachers the interac-
tive e-books they prepared and to reflect on the process. Finally, four trainers reviewed the
interactive e-books in light of the specific learning outcomes the groups had focused on
and offered feedback to the teachers.

3.3 Data Collection Tools

A 26-item “Teacher Digital Competence Questionnaire” was developed based on the Dig-
CompEdu framework to determine the changes in teachers’ digital competencies percep-
tions. The questionnaire was prepared to cover five dimensions of DigCompEdu (Profes-
sional Engagement, Digital Resources, Teaching and Learning, Assessment, Empowering
Learners). A guide for DigComp prepared by Redecker (2017) was used in the develop-
ment of the questionnaire’s items. The questionnaire was first reviewed by an expert work-
ing in the field of digital competence for its evaluation in terms of scope. According to the
feedback from the experts, revisions were made on the items. The opinion was received
from an expert in Turkish language teaching to evaluate whether the form was linguisti-
cally understandable. It was a 5-point Likert-type questionnaire ranging from 1 (“strongly

13
 İ. Reisoğlu

disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). The questionnaire included 3 items for the Professional
Engagement area, 8 items for the Digital Resources area, 3 items for the Assessment area,
6 items for the Empowering Learners area, and 4 items for the Teaching–Learning area.
The "Facilitating Learners digital competence" area is not scope of this study, so there is
no item about this area in the questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the
survey is 0.91. The questionnaire was applied to 24 teachers as a pre-test and post-test.
Diaries and focus group interviews were used to determine how teachers planned to use
the knowledge and experience they acquired from the training within their classrooms. The
diary and interview questions were created based on the five domains of DigCompEdu and
activities involved in the training. The questions in the diaries were reviewed by an expert
working in the field of digital competence for its evaluation in terms of scope. The diaries
presented the teachers with a number of questions such as “How do you intend to use apps
such as Google Classroom in your professional career? “ and “How do you intend to use
animated video creation tools, such as Render Forest, for learning-teaching activities in
your profession?”.
After the training was complete, focus group interviews were conducted with each
group. Focus group interviews were chosen because of their interactive nature and ability
to draw insights from the overall experience (Gibbs 2012). The interview questions were
reviewed by an expert working in the field of digital competence for its evaluation in terms
of the scope. Prior to conducting the focus group interviews, a pilot study with two teach-
ers provided an opportunity to revise and organize interview questions. Interviews were
recorded with the permission of the participants. Each focus group interviews were con-
ducted with three participants in 45–50 min. Focus group interviews were recorded with a
voice recorder. By making the teachers say their names while expressing their opinions, it
was distinguished which statement belonged to whom. The questions directed to the teach-
ers during these interviews included: “What are your plans for employing the digital tech-
nologies and tools you learned in your instructional activities or classes?” and “How do
you plan to use the digital tools you gained in evaluating and giving feedback to students
or monitoring students’ development?”.

3.4 Data Analysis

Since the data gathered through the “Teacher Digital Competence Questionnaire” did
not exhibit normal distribution, data were further analyzed through the Wilcoxon Signed
Ranks test (Field 2009). For the normal distribution, kurtosis and skewness values related
to pre-test and post-test items converted to z-scores by dividing by their standard error. The
resulting scores were greater than 1.96; therefore, it was decided that the data did not show
a normal distribution. In addition, since the histogram, Q–Q, P–P graphs were examined, it
was decided that the data did not show a normal distribution. The results of these analyses
were displayed with tables. The effect size (r) for each Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test result
was calculated.
The data gathered through the diaries and the interviews were analyzed in MAXQDA
2018 software. The deductive analysis technique was used for analyzing qualitative data.
In this analysis, the data were examined for consistency with the theories, hypotheses, or
assumptions that the researcher specified or developed (Thomas 2006). The researchers
ensured that there were sufficient data corresponding directly to the thesis of the study to
serve as a basis for analysis. In this study, the DigCompEdu framework was used as an
analytical lens. The data obtained from focus group interviews and diaries were examined

13
How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’…

within the categories and sub-competencies specified in DigCompEdu. When data corre-
sponding to the categories and sub-competencies specified in DigCompEdu were detected,
coding was applied. The sub-competencies and codes based on the framework were
checked by an expert working in the field of digital competence. The consistency factor in
the coding was found to be 0.82 (McHugh, 2012).

4 Results

4.1 Teachers Development in the Professional Engagement Area and Activities

Planned with Reference to the Professional Engagement Area

In this section, the results related to R­ Q1(a) and R ­ Q2(a) are presented. The changes estab-
lished in the teachers’ “Professional Engagement” competencies perceptions are presented
in Table 1.
After the training, teachers thought they showed improvement in using digital technolo-
gies to communicate with students ­(Mpre_test = 3.041; ­Mpost_test = 4.720; ­SDpre_test = 1.232;
­SDpost_test = 0.541; Z = − 3.994; p ≤ 0.001; r  = 0.815) and parents (­ Mpre_test = 2.750;
­Mpost_test = 4.600; ­SDpre_test = 1.421; ­SDpost_test = 0.577; Z = − 3.804; p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.776),
in collaborating with colleagues ­ (Mpre_test = 3.041; ­Mpost_test = 4.800; ­SDpre_test = 1.301;
­SDpost_test = 0.500; Z = − 3.811; p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.777), in awareness of digital competen-
cies requirements ­(Mpre_test = 2.541; ­Mpost_test = 4.440; ­SDpre_test = 1.250; ­SDpost_test = 0.820;
Z = − 3.824; p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.780), and in reflecting on the use of digital technologies
in education (­Mpre_test = 2.708; ­Mpost_test = 4.680; ­SDpre_test = 1.366; ­SDpost_test = 0.556;
Z = − 3.945; p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.805). Also, the effect size for each item is high. The activities
related to “Professional Engagement” in their field of study that the teachers planned to put
into practice are reflected in Table 2.
With respect to the sub-competence “Organizational communication”, teachers planned
to put into practice their experiences for communicating with students and contributing
to organizational projects and activities. The P4′s explanations regarding this sub-compe-
tence are as follows: “I will use infographics for the school’s website, as well as for the
competitions and events carried out at the school.” In terms of the “Professional collabo-
ration” sub-competence, teachers planned to implement their experiences for sharing the
knowledge and experience they gained in training with their colleagues. The P4′s thoughts
related to this sub-competence are as follows: “I can use Google Classroom to share con-
tent with my colleagues. The developments taking place at the school, as well as various
announcements, can be published on that platform.” Regarding the “Continuous profes-
sional development” sub-competence, only one teacher planned to keep track of projects
about digital technologies. For the “Reflective practice” sub-competence, teachers consid-
ered critiquing digital pedagogical education activities and identifying their deficiencies
from a digital competence standpoint.

4.2 Teachers’ Development in the Digital Resources Area and Activities Planned

with Reference to the Digital Resources Area

In this section, the results related to ­RQ1(b) and ­RQ2(b) are presented. The changes observed
in the teachers’ perceptions of “Digital Resources” competencies are presented in Table 3.

13
 Table 1  The development of teachers’ competencies in the professional engagement area

13
İtems Responses N Mean ranks Sum of ranks Z p r

I can use digital technologies to communicate with students Negative 1 5.00 5.00  − 3.994 .000*** .815
Positive 21 11.81 248.00
Ties 2
Total 24
I can use digital technologies to communicate with parents Negative 2 3.50 7.00  − 3.804 .000*** .776
Positive 19 11.79 224.00
Ties 3
Total 24
I can use digital technologies to collaborate with my colleagues Negative 1 2.00 2.00  − 3.811 .000*** .777
Positive 18 10.44 188.00
Ties 5
Total 24
I am aware of my digital competencies needs Negative 1 10.00 10.00  − 3.824 .000*** .780
Positive 21 11.57 243.00
Ties 2
Total 24
I can critique the use of digital technologies in education Negative 1 3.00 3.00  − 3.945 .000*** .805
Positive 20 11.40 228.00
Ties 3
Total 24

r Effect size
***p ≤ .001
İ. Reisoğlu
How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’…

Table 2  Frequency of activities planned with reference to the professional engagement area

Sub-competencies Codes f

Organizational communication Communicating with students 9

Contributing to organizational projects and activities 5
Contributing to the development of the organization’s web site 2
Communicating with parents 2
Communicating with colleagues associated with other organizations 2
Engaging in organizational communication 2
Professional collaboration Sharing knowledge and experience with colleagues 4
Supporting colleagues to help with their digital pedagogic develop- 1
ment
Digital continuous professional Monitoring projects related to digital technologies 1
development
Reflective practice Commenting on digital pedagogic practices 13
Identifying digital competence needs 4

Through the training, the teachers thought they improved in utilizing exist-
ing digital resources (Mpre_test = 4.375;
­ ­Mpost_test = 4.880; ­SDpre_test = 0.875;
­SDpost_test = 0.439; Z = -2.053; p ≤ 0.05; r = 0.419), making changes on existing digi-
tal resources (­Mpre_test = 3.583; ­Mpost_test = 4.680; ­SDpre_test = 1.100; ­SDpost_test = 0.556;
Z = − 3.338; p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.681), choosing digital resources relevant to specific learn-
ing objectives (­Mpre_test = 3.958; ­Mpost_test = 4.680; ­SDpre_test = 0.806; ­SDpost_test = 0.556;
Z = − 3.036; p ≤ 0.01; r = 0.620), making changes on digital resources in line with the
learning objectives ­(Mpre_test = 3.750; ­Mpost_test = 4.840; ­SDpre_test = 0.944; ­SDpost_test = 0.472;
Z = − 3.678; p ≤ 0.001; r  =  0.750), creating new digital resources (­Mpre_test = 3.666;
­Mpost_test = 4.640; ­SDpre_test = 1.049; ­SDpost_test = 0.568; Z = − 3.109; p ≤ 0.01; r = 0.634),
integrating interactive elements into digital resources ­(Mpre_test = 3.750; ­Mpost_test = 4.880;
­SDpre_test = 1.260; ­SDpost_test = 0.331; Z = -3.361; p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.686), and sharing digi-
tal resources via digital platforms (­Mpre_test = 3.750; ­Mpost_test = 5.000; ­SDpre_test = 1.359;
­SDpost_test = 0.000; Z = − 3.325; p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.679). The effect size for each item is also
high. Table 4 presents the activities teachers planned in regard to the “Digital resources”
area.
In terms of the “Selecting digital resources” sub-competence, teachers decided to make
choices by evaluating the benefits and limitations of the use of tools such as Bookwidg-
ets, Canva, and Easily in learning-teaching activities. With respect to the sub-competence
“Creating and modifying digital resources”, teachers planned to create educational videos,
infographics, animated presentations, concept maps, etc., related to the objectives and the
subject matter. Teachers also intended to integrate various content in the form of inter-
active e-books. Thus, P22 comments included the following: “I can prepare a brochure,
and I can support education values. I can prepare posters to display inside the classroom,
including concept maps and mental maps to provide a more holistic perspective towards
a given topic.” In addition, P6′s thoughts related to this sub-competence are as follows:
“Powtoon is my favorite. I believe it can be a lot of fun, if we make creative use of it. (…)
With Camtasia, 5–10  min of video can be developed for repetition drills. (…) Creating
flashcards could be very useful for various topics, such as elements and symbols. I thought
about building a periodic table with this tool.” When it came to the sub-competence

13
 Table 3  The development of teachers’ competencies in the digital resources area
İtems Responses N Mean ranks Sum of ranks Z p r

13
I can utilize existing digital resources Negative 2 6.75 13.50  − 2.053 .040* .419
Positive 10 6.45 64.50
Ties 12
Total 24
I can make changes in existing digital resources Negative 3 4.50 13.50  − 3.338 .001*** .681
Positive 16 11.03 176.50
Ties 5
Total 24
I can create my own digital resources Negative 2 9.75 19.50  − 3.109 .002** .634
Positive 17 10.03 170.50
Ties 5
Total 24
I can integrate interactive elements such as animations, links, and videos into digital resources (presen- Negative 1 4.00 4.00  − 3.361 .001*** .686
tations, e-books, etc.) Positive 15 8.80 132.00
Ties 8
Total 24
I can add or remove the content in existing digital resources to make them suitable for my courses Negative 1 10.50 10.50  − 2.865 .004** .584
Positive 14 7.82 109.50
Ties 9
Total 24
I set specific learning objectives as I choose, revise, and develop my digital resources Negative 3 8.00 24.00  − 3.036 .002** .620
Positive 16 10.38 166.00
Ties 5
Total 24
İ. Reisoğlu
 Table 3  (continued)
İtems Responses N Mean ranks Sum of ranks Z p r
***
I can make changes in existing digital resources with reference to learning objectives and the profi- Negative 1 6.50 6.50  − 3.678 .000 .750
ciency levels of the students
Positive 18 10.19 183.50
Ties 5
Total 24
I can share digital resources on digital platforms Negative 0 .00 .00  − 3.325 .001*** .679
Positive 14 7.50 105.00
Ties 10
Total 24

r Effect size
*p ≤ .05
How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’…

**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001

13
13
Table 4  Frequency of the activities planned with reference to the digital resources area
Sub-competencies Codes f

Selecting digital resources Assessing the benefits and limitations of digital resources 17
Choosing digital resources with reference to the technical infrastructure 4
Creating and modifying digital resources Developing digital resources with the objectives and subject matter in mind 13
Designing posters and book covers 13
Integrating various elements of content in interactive e-books 11
Producing educational videos 10
Designing tests and quizzes 9
Producing flash-cards, puzzles, games 8
Designing animated presentations 7
Designing interactive presentations 6
Developing concept maps 5
Developing infographics 5
Designing intros 5
Managing, protecting and sharing digital resources Sharing resources and knowledge using digital technologies 12
İ. Reisoğlu
How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’…

“Managing, protecting and sharing digital resources”, teachers considered sharing infor-
mation and resources with their students within virtual classrooms.

4.3 Teachers’ Development in the Assessment Category and Activities

Implemented with Reference to the Assessment Area

In this section, the results related to R

­ Q1(c) and R ­ Q2(c) are presented. The changes observed
in the teachers’ perceptions of “Assessment” competencies are presented in Table 5.
After the training, the teachers thought they improved in the areas of provid-
ing feedback (­Mpre_test = 4.000; ­Mpost_test = 4.840; ­SDpre_test = 0.834; ­SDpost_test = 0.374;
Z = -3.700; p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.755), making assessments (­Mpre_test = 4.000; ­Mpost_test = 4.800;
­SDpre_test = 1.215; ­SDpost_test = 0.500; Z = − 2.941; p ≤ 0.01; r = 0.600), and employ-
ing various technologies for assessment and evaluation purposes (­Mpre_test = 4.291;
­Mpost_test = 4.920; ­SDpre_test = 0.806; ­SDpost_test = 0.276; Z = − 3.116; p ≤ 0.01; r = 0.636).
Also, the effect size for each item is high. Table  6 presents the activities the teachers
planned in the “Assessment” area.
According to Table 6, in terms of the sub-competence “Assessment strategies”, teachers
planned to use digital resources such as tests and quizzes in the assessment and evalua-
tion process. Teachers envisioned writing summative evaluations using digital technologies
when requiring students to develop videos, infographics, etc., about subjects covered in
class, as well as when giving assignments in virtual classrooms. In addition to that, teach-
ers intended to use digital technologies to craft formative evaluations and administer quiz-
zes using digital technologies. In this direction, P13 stated the following: “With these tools,
I can facilitate interaction among the students and allow them to provide peer reviews for
each other.” With respect to the sub-competence “Analyzing evidence”, teachers planned
to analyze and evaluate data using digital technologies. Regarding the sub-competence
“Feedback and planning”, teachers intended to use the instant feedback features of digital
technologies to give feedback to students. The explanations by P8 regarding this sub-com-
petence are as follows: “Yesterday, we were introduced to quizzes on Book widgets. The
app sends the results via e-mail as PDF files. (…) Because our classrooms are large, with
50–55 students, we can use this app to provide timely feedback and corrections.”

4.4 Teachers’ Development in the Empowering Learners Area and Activities

Planned within the Empowering Learners Area

In this section, the results related to ­ RQ1(d) and ­ RQ2(d) are presented. The changes
observed in the teachers’ perceptions of “Empowering Learners” competencies are pre-
sented in Table 7.
The teachers thought they improved in focusing on messaging that enhanced the
accessibility of digital resources ­ (Mpre_test = 3.750; ­Mpost_test = 4.800; ­SDpre_test = 0.989;
­SDpost_test = 0.408; Z = -3.594; p ≤ 0.01; r = 0.733), motivating ­(Mpre_test = 4.500;
­Mpost_test = 4.960; ­SDpre_test = 0.780; ­SDpost_test = 0.200; Z = -2.484; p ≤ 0.05; r = 0.507) and
activating students (­ Mpre_test = 4.000; ­Mpost_test = 4.760; ­SDpre_test = 1.021; ­SDpost_test = 0.435;
Z = − 3.011; p ≤ 0.01; r = 0.614) and supporting individual learning through use of digi-
tal technologies ­(Mpre_test = 4.500; ­Mpost_test = 4.960; ­SDpre_test = 0.834; ­SDpost_test = 0.200;
Z = − 2.326; p ≤ 0.05; r = 0.474). Also, the effect size for each item is high. Table 8 presents
the activities the teachers planned with respect to the “Empowering Learners” area.

13
13
Table 5  Development of teachers’ competencies within the assessment area
Items Responses N Mean response Sum of responses Z p r

I can use digital technologies to provide feedback to students Negative 0 .00 .00 − 3.700 .000*** .755
Positive 16 8.50 136.00
Ties 8
Total 24
I can use digital tools to make assessments Negative 1 5.00 5.00 − 2.941 .003** .600
Positive 12 7.17 86.00
Ties 11
Total 24
I can employ various technologies as I engage in assessment and Negative 1 6.50 6.50 − 3.116 .002** .636
evaluation activities Positive 13 7.58 98.50
Ties l 10
Total 24

r Effect size
**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001
İ. Reisoğlu
How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’…

Table 6  Frequency of the activities planned with reference to the assessment area

Sub-competencies Codes f

Assessment strategies Employing digital technologies in the assessment-evaluation process 20

Engaging in summative assessments using digital technologies 16
Assigning performance tasks involving digital tools 14
Giving assignments in virtual classrooms 9
Engaging in formal assessments using digital technologies 6
Keeping track of the students’ progress 5
Keeping track of the students’ attendance 4
Holding quiz shows via digital technologies 4
Managing the assessment process in virtual classrooms 3
Employing digital technologies in peer-review procedures 2
Analyzing evidence Analyzing and evaluating data 10
Feedback and planning Providing feedback for students 15
Receiving feedback from students regarding assignments 4

In terms of the sub-competence “Differentiation and personalization”, teachers intended

to consider the students’ needs in choosing, developing, and using digital resources and
implement digital technologies in supporting individual learning. The explanations by
P21 regarding this sub-competence are as follows: “Prior to this year, we had always used
multiple-choice questions. Within such a framework, the students were effectively divided
into two sub-groups: the academic achievers and the rest. Now, with the new tools, we
are trying to engage students in all types, such as those who are strong on visual skills or
who are good writers.” With respect to the sub-competence “Accessibility and inclusion,”
teachers intended to take message design principles into account when developing digital
resources. In terms of the “Active engagement of the students” sub-competence, teachers
planned to use digital resources to draw the students’ attention and motivate them, as well
as for ensuring active student engagement, thereby make learning fun. In addition to those
goals, teachers also aimed to ensure student engagement in the content. In this direction,
P24 noted the following: “I can use design software such as Canva to support the creativ-
ity and design capabilities of the students.”

4.5 Teachers’ Development in the Teaching–Learning Category and Activities

Planned within the Teaching–Learning Area

In this section, the results related to ­ RQ1(e) and ­ RQ2(e) are presented. The changes
observed in the teachers’ perceptions of “Teaching–Learning” competencies are presented
in Table 9.
Teachers thought theirs ability to use digital technologies for organizing teach-
ing–learning ­(Mpre_test = 4.208; ­Mpost_test = 5.000; ­SDpre_test = 0.883; ­SDpost_test = 0.000;
Z = -3.491; p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.713) and collaborative learning activities (­Mpre_test = 4.208;
­Mpost_test = 4.880; ­SDpre_test = 0.779; ­SDpost_test = 0.439; Z = − 2.653; p ≤ 0.01; r = 0.541)
and for supporting self-regulating skills improved (­Mpre_test = 4.000; ­Mpost_test = 4.920;
­SDpre_test = 0.978; ­SDpost_test = 0.276; Z = -3.334; p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.680). Table 10 presents the
activities the teachers planned with respect to the “Teaching–Learning” area.

13
 Table 7  The development in the teachers’ competencies within the empowering learners area
Items Responses N Mean ranks Sum of ranks Z p r

13
I pay attention to design principles to enhance the accessibility of the digital resources I Negative 1 5.00 5.00  − 3.594 .000** .733
present Positive 17 9.76 166.00
Ties 6
Total 24
I use digital technologies to motivate students Negative 1 4.50 4.50  − 2.484 .013* .507
Positive 9 5.61 50.50
Ties 14
Total 24
I employ the optimal tools to ensure the active engagement of the students Negative 2 6.00 12.00  − 3.011 .003** .614
Positive 14 8.86 124.00
Ties 8
Total 24
I am aware that digital technologies make it easier to access resources Negative 4 4.50 18.00  − 1.026 .305 .209
Positive 6 6.17 37.00
Ties 14
Total 24
I support my students in the use of digital technologies when engaged in learning activi- Negative 2 10.00 20.00  − 2.789 .005** .569
ties and assignments Positive 15 8.87 133.00
Ties 7
Total 24
I am aware that digital technologies support individual learning Negative 1 3.50 3.50  − 2.326 .020* .474
Positive 8 5.19 41.50
Ties 15
Total 24

r Effect size
*p ≤ .05
**p ≤ .01
İ. Reisoğlu

***p ≤ .001
How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’…

Table 8  Frequency of the activities planned within the empowering learners area

Sub-competencies Codes f

Differentiation and personalization Taking students’ needs into account 15

Employing digital technologies in supporting individual learn- 11
ing
Accessibility and inclusion Taking design principles into account when developing digital 24
resources
Planning the digital resource creation process 16
Actively engagement of the students Drawing attention 24
Motivating students 16
Ensuring the active engagement of students in learning activities 10
Making learning fun 9
Facilitating the students’ active engagement with the content 4
Developing presentation skills 3
Making a positive impact on student attitudes 2
Supporting learning through discovery 2
Enhancing communications among students 2
Supporting design skills 2
Supporting creativity 1
Increasing academic achievement levels 1

Teachers planned to organize activities related to the sub-competence “Collabora-

tive learning” using digital technologies. Under the “Teaching” sub-competence, teach-
ers planned to visualize course content, organize interactive activities, propose pedagogic
strategies for the use of digital technologies in the teaching of complex topics, support the
learning process with educational games, and the teaching of concepts, etc. The explana-
tions of P22 regarding this sub-competence are as follows: “I will use digital technology
to prepare materials that provide a concrete perspective on abstract topics. For instance,
it is possible to come up with some digital stories about values education.” In addition,
P24 noted the following: “Depending on the topic, educational videos can be used to draw
attention and provide motivation. They can also serve to provide a summary of the topic at
the end of a course.” In the sub-competence “Self-regulating learning,” teachers planned to
assign responsibility for the learning process to the students through the use of digital tools
technologies.

5 Discussions

With respect to the “Professional engagement” area, it was determined that teachers
improved themselves in terms of communicating students, parents and colleagues, support-
ing colleagues to help with their digital pedagogic development, critiquing current digital
pedagogic practices, and identifying digital competence needs. Teachers have thought of
using the knowledge they have acquired in their professional lives, especially in the context
of reflecting on their practices and communicating with students. As a result, it is thought
that employing strategies such as role modeling, collaborative studying, feedback, realis-
tic experiences, which are also recommended by Tondeur et al. (2012) in digital compe-
tence trainings, are effective in terms of development of teachers’ digital competencies. In

13
13
Table 9  The development in the teachers’ competencies within the teaching–learning area
Items Responses N Mean response Sum of responses Z p r

I can utilize digital resources in learning-teaching activities Negative 0 .00 .00 − 3.491 .000*** .713
Positive 14 7.50 105.00
Ties 10
Total 24
I can support collaborative work among students using digital technologies Negative 1 11.50 11.50 − 2.653 .008** .541
Positive 13 7.19 93.50
Ties 10
Total 24
I can support the use of digital technologies on the part of the students saving Negative 15 8.87 133.00 − 2.789 .005** .569
and exhibiting their work Positive 2 10.00 20.00
Ties 7
Total 24
I can cultivate the self-regulating skills of the students with the help of digital Negative 1 6.00 6.00 − 3.334 .001*** .680
technologies Positive 15 8.67 130.00
Ties 8
Total 24

r Effect size
**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001
İ. Reisoğlu
How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’…

Table 10  Frequency of the activities planned within the teaching–learning area

Sub-competencies Codes f

Collaborative learning Organizing collaborative learning activities 5

teaching Visualizing content 17
Organizing interactive activities 16
Lecturing 15
Proposing pedagogic strategies regarding the use of digital technologies 14
Supporting the learning process with educational games 13
Supporting various parts of the course with various digital technologies 13
Summarizing topics 11
Facilitating easier learning of a topic 9
Supporting lasting learning 8
Consolidating the topic learned 7
Presenting preliminary information about a topic 6
Providing material content 6
Providing enriched learning environments 5
Repeating a topic 5
Teaching complex topics 4
Registering the learning process 3
Keeping track of a course using virtual classrooms 3
Supporting the teaching of concepts 2
Encouraging research 1
Providing information about goals 1
Establishing links between a topic and daily life 1
Self-regulated learning Assigning the responsibility for learning processes to the student 3

literature, Hepp et al. (2015) underline that 21st-century teachers are expected to collabo-
rate with their colleagues, become leaders in the use of digital technology, and constantly
improve and renew themselves in the digital sense. Brun and Hinostroza (2014) found that
digital technologies were of greatest importance in terms of professional development and
communications, leading some teachers to attend training and engage in digital technol-
ogy projects. Wasson and Hansen (2014) state that teachers with high digital competence
are more willing to use digital technologies in their administrative, learning-teaching and
assessment, and evaluation processes. Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik (2018) observed,
however, that teachers do not usually receive adequate training in utilizing communications
technologies for professional or educational purposes, reflecting on educational practices
that employ digital technologies, or using digital technologies for their own professional
development. In this context, it can be stated that the study conducted was effective in
reaching the qualifications expected from 21st-century teachers.
In terms of the “Digital Resources” area, teachers improved in utilizing existing digi-
tal resources, making changes on existing digital resources, choosing digital resources rel-
evant to specific learning objectives, making changes on digital resources in line with the
learning objectives, creating new digital resources, integrating interactive elements into
digital resources and sharing digital resources via digital platforms. Teachers decided to
make choices by evaluating the benefits and limitations of the use of tools. They planned to

13
 İ. Reisoğlu

create educational videos, infographics, animated presentations, concept maps, etc., related
to the objectives and the subject matter and share information and resources with their
students within virtual classrooms. In literature, the significance of providing opportunities
for in-service teachers that enable developing course materials using different technologies
was underlined (Ranieri and Bruni 2018; Tondeur et al. 2017a, b). In line with it, Romero-
García et al. (2020) determined that after the digital competence training they carried out,
pre-service teachers made progress in benefiting from concept map, infographic creation
and gamification applications. Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik’s (2018) findings regarding
the inadequate training received by teachers showed that they are hindered in their ability
to assess digital technologies in terms of its compatibility with the subject matter or the
group of students, as well as in developing multimedia materials. Uerz et al. (2018) empha-
size that as technology develops, teaching materials also change, and teachers should be
trained at this point. Tondeur et al. (2018) emphasize that teachers do not have sufficient
experience in content design and should be supported in this sense. In this study, the devel-
opment of the teachers’ digital competencies in the context of applied and collaborative
activities demonstrably helped teachers create distinctive content, select and develop con-
tents suitable for learning outcomes.
In terms of the Assessment area, the teachers improved in providing feedback, making
assessments, and employing various technologies for assessment and evaluation purposes.
Teachers planned to use digital resources such as tests and quizzes in the assessment and
evaluation process. Teachers envisioned writing summative evaluations using digital tech-
nologies when requiring students to develop videos, infographics, etc., about subjects cov-
ered in class, as well as when giving assignments in virtual classrooms. In addition to that,
teachers intended to use digital technologies to craft formative evaluations and administer
quizzes using digital technologies. Teachers planned to analyze and evaluate data using
digital technologies. Also, they intended to use the instant feedback features of digital
technologies to give feedback to students. In this situation, it is thought that it is effective
to carry out activities with digital tools that can be used by teachers for assessment and
evaluation purposes during training. In the literature, Hsu and Lin (2020) and Romero-
García et  al. (2020) underline the use of digital technologies in the planning and devel-
opment of the learning-teaching process and in the assessment of students. Instefjord and
Munthe (2017) determined that teachers deemed themselves adequate in terms of employ-
ing digital technologies in the context of assessment-evaluation activities, while Lindberg
et al. (2017) found that teachers believe that digital technologies facilitate documenting the
evaluation process, reduce wasted time, and aid learning management systems for students
assignments. Despite this, Benali et  al. (2018) found that teachers’ digital competencies
in using digital technologies for assessment and evaluation purposes are low. Brun and
Hinostroza (2014) noted that these tools were infrequently used in teachers’ professional
careers. The training provided through this study enabled teachers to learn different assess-
ment and evaluation tools and to grow in the area of assessment.
In terms of the Empowering Learners” area, teachers improved in focusing on messag-
ing that enhanced the accessibility of digital resources, motivating and activating students and
supporting individual learning through use of digital technologies. Teachers intended to con-
sider the students’ needs in choosing, developing, and using digital resources and implement
digital technologies in supporting individual learning. Teachers intended to take message
design principles into account when developing digital resources. Teachers planned to use
digital resources to draw the students’ attention and motivate them, as well as ensuring active
student engagement, thereby making learning fun. Teachers also aimed to ensure student
engagement with the content. Nevertheless, Moltudal et al. (2019) acknowledge that it is the

13
How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’…

duty of teachers to facilitate students’ learning but draws attention to the fact that teacher com-
petencies required for this task vary. In addition to these, they underline that when using digi-
tal technologies in the learning-teaching process, teachers do not know how to communicate
with students and see digital technologies as distracting factors. Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik
(2018) observe that teachers lack sufficient knowledge to utilize digital technologies to support
learning at the individual level. Benali et al. (2018) found that teachers’ digital competencies
related to individualized teaching using digital technologies and enabling students to actively
learn are lower than other competencies. Tondeur et al. (2017a, b) found that new teachers
did not typically use digital technologies to support learning the skills such as creative and
critical thinking required by students in the twenty-first century. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Left-
wich (2013) state that most teachers use technology to present content to students rather than
to enhance student achievement levels, and they underline that technology should instead be
employed to support significant learning activities. The present study, however, found that the
production of e-books in parallel with the curricula gave teachers a model of how digital tech-
nologies can be employed to support student development.
In terms of the Teaching–Learning” area, teachers’ ability to use digital technologies for
organizing teaching–learning, collaborative learning activities and for supporting self-regulat-
ing skills developed. Teachers planned to organize activities using digital technologies, visual-
ize course content, organize interactive activities, propose pedagogic strategies for the use of
digital technologies in the teaching of complex topics, and support the learning process with
educational games and the teaching of concepts, etc. Teachers planned to assign responsibil-
ity for the learning process to the students through the use of digital tools. In the associated
literature, Fernández-Batanero et  al. (2020) state that it is necessary to provide information
about the rational use of digital technologies in the learning-teaching process in teacher edu-
cation programs. Moltudal et al. (2019) point out that teachers with different levels of digital
competence differ in their perceptions and applications of the pedagogical use of digital tech-
nologies. Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik (2018) reveal that many teachers do not feel confi-
dent using digital technologies in organizing collaborative activities. Instefjord and Munthe
(2017) note that teachers were aware of the importance of digital technologies for organizing
learning-teaching activities but had often been unable to use them as envisioned. Kihoza et al.
(2016) argue that teachers lack the knowledge and experience required for using digital tech-
nologies to support teaching, are unable to utilize digital technologies to effectively implement
their classes, and need training in these areas. Samad et al. (2016) determined that teachers
use digital technologies mostly for personal purposes but cannot use them effectively in the
learning-teaching process. In the present study, though, the theoretical insights in the training
were applied via the development of the interactive e-book and were found to contribute to the
development of the teachers’ knowledge, skills, and confidence in incorporating digital tech-
nologies in the classroom. Therefore, one can forcefully argue that the training provided offers
valuable insights and perspectives for the usage of digital technologies in education. It would
not be an overstatement to call the findings of this study noteworthy in terms of exploring the
actual implementation of the teachers’ training within the classroom setting.

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

Teachers gained knowledge and experience in all digital competence areas after the train-
ing. In particular, teachers improved in communicating with students, developing and
sharing content for student characteristics and learning outcomes, making formative and

13
 İ. Reisoğlu

summative evaluations, and giving feedback to students by using digital technologies. Sig-
nificant progress was observed in teachers ’ knowledge and skills of planning activities
that will appeal to the individual characteristics of students, actively engage them, sup-
port their cooperative working and self-regulation skills, and facilitate students’ access to
course resources. They planned to use this knowledge and experience in their professional
lives. In this respect, it can be stated that this kind of practice-based training can be effec-
tive in improving teachers’ digital competencies. Moreover, it is apparent that the training
was helpful in facilitating classroom application, regardless of the training on participants’
prior familiarity with digital technologies. In future training, it may be useful to show more
examples and applications regarding the use of digital technologies in professional life. In
addition, extending the training time can help teachers gain more knowledge and experi-
ence from the training and support the increase of information exchange between teachers.
Conducting similar studies with more participants on digital platforms can contribute to
the field. Strategies such as collaborative study, feedback, and developing different contents
for the curriculum based on this training can be included in teacher education programs
and be effective in training pre-service teachers in accordance with 2­ 1st-century expecta-
tions. Such teacher training programs can be integrated with school experience lessons,
enabling pre-service teachers to experience the knowledge they have acquired in real class-
room environments.

7 Limitations and Suggestion for Future Research

One distinct limitation of this study in terms of assessing the level and extent of imple-
mentation of what teachers learned stems from the use of self-reported questionnaire data
instead of observations. This limitation is a natural consequence of the inability to perform
long-term observations of each teacher who participated in the study since they reside and
work in 21 provinces all around the country. Future studies can improve in this area sim-
ply by incorporating and utilizing data obtained through long-term observations and thus
achieving a more detailed understanding of the state of affairs surrounding the research
questions. The development of teachers’ digital competencies and their reflections on prac-
tice can be better understood through long-term research. Another limitation of the study
is the time of training. Due to the implementation conditions and budget of the project, the
training time is limited to 63 h. The process of digital competence training can be extended
over a long period of time so that teachers can apply the knowledge they have learned in
their classes and reflect on their experiences as a result of these practices.

Acknowledgements  This study was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of
Turkey 4005-Innovative Applications in Science and Society under Grant number 118B172 “Teachers Cre-
ate Interactive E-Books” project.

Code Availability The data was analyzed with MAXQDA2018. Codes can be presented and shared on
demand.

Data Availability  Data can be presented and shared on demand.

Compliance with Ethical Standards 

Conflict of interest  There is no conflicts of interest.

13
How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’…

References
Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. M. (2016). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ learning and teaching of activ-
ity-based lessons supported with spreadsheets. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(1), 39–59.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/14759​39X.
Benali, M., Kaddouri, M., & Azzimani, T. (2018). Digital competence of Moroccan teachers of english.
International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 14(2), 99–120.
Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK. Is the construct ‘just right? Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 103–128.
Brun, M., & Hinostroza, J. E. (2014). Learning to become a teacher in the 21st century: ICT integration
in initial teacher education in Chile. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 222–238.
Cabero-Almenara, J., Romero-Tena, R., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2020). Evaluation of teacher digital
competence frameworks through expert judgement: the use of the expert competence coefficient.
Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research (NAER Journal), 9(2), 275–293.
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​.
Casillas Martín, S., Cabezas González, M., & García Peñalvo, F. J. (2020). Digital competence of early
childhood education teachers: attitude, knowledge and use of ICT. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 43(2), 210–223. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02619​768.2019.16813​93.
Instutito Nacional de Technolagias Educativas y de Formacion del Profesorado (INTEF) (2017). Com-
mon digital competence framework for teachers – September 2017.
Dinçer, S. (2018). Are preservice teachers really literate enough to integrate technology in their class-
room practice? Determining the technology literacy level of preservice teachers. Education and
Information Technologies, 23(6), 2699–2718. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1063​9-018-9737-z.
Ellis, N. J., Alonzo, D., & Nguyen, H. T. M. (2020). Elements of a quality pre-service teacher men-
tor: A literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 92, 103072. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2020.10307​2.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes
required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers and Education,
64, 175–182. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2012.10.008.
Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC)
framework. Educational Technology Research and Development. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1142​
3-020-09767​-4.
Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Montenegro-Rueda, M., Fernández-Cerero, J., & García-Martínez, I. (2020).
Digital competences for teacher professional development. Systematic Review, European Journal of
Teacher Education,. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02619​768.2020.18273​89.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. New York: SAGE Publications.
Garcia-Martin, J., & Garcia-Sanchez, J. N. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the competence
dimensions of digital literacy and of psychological and educational measures. Computers and Edu-
cation, 107, 54–67. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2016.12.010.
Gibbs, A. (2012). Focus groups and group interviews. In J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe, & L. V. Hedges
(Eds.), Research methods and methodologies in education (pp. 186–192). London: SAGE Publica-
tions Ltd.
Gisbert Cervera, M., & Lázaro Cantabrana, J. L. (2015). Professional development in teacher digi-
tal competence and improving school quality from the teachers’ perspective: A case study. New
Approaches In Educational Research, 4(2), 115–122. https​://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2015.7.123.
Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2018). Newly qualified teachers’ professional digital compe-
tence: Implications for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 214–231.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/02619​768.2017.14160​85.
Gudmundsdottir, G. B., Loftagarden, M., & Ottestad, G. (2014). Newly qualified teachers: Professional
digital competence and experiences with ICT in teacher education. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre
for ICT. (in Education).
Hatlevik, O. E. (2017). Examining the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy, their digital compe-
tence, strategies to evaluate ınformation, and use of ICT at school. Scandinavian Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 61(5), 555–567. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00313​831.2016.11725​01.
Hepp, P., Prats, M. A., & Holgado, J. (2015). Teacher training: Technology helping to develop an inno-
vative and reflective professional profile. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 12(2),
30–43. https​://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i2​.2458.

13
 İ. Reisoğlu

Hinojo-Lucena, F. J., Aznar-Díaz, I., Cáceres-Reche, M. P., Trujillo-Torres, J. M., & Romero- Rod-
ríguez, J. M. (2019). Factors influencing the development of digital competence in teachers: Analy-
sis of the teaching staff of permanent education centres. IEEE Access, 7, 178744–178752. https​://doi.
org/10.1109/ACCES​S.2019.29574​38.
Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., Ma, J., & Yang, J. (2019). Seeing the wood for the trees: Insights into the com-
plexity of developing pre-service teachers’ digital competencies for future teaching. In Y. W. Chew,
K. M. Chan, & A. Alphonso (Eds.), ASCILITE 2019: 36th International Conference on Innovation,
Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education (pp. 441–446).
ASCILITE.
Hsu, Y. Y., & Lin, C. H. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of a preservice teacher technology training
module incorporating SQD strategies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 17(1), 1–17. https​://doi.org/10.1186/s4123​9-020-00205​-2.
Instefjord, E. J., & Munthe, E. (2016). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology: An analysis
of the emphasis on digital competence in teacher education curricula. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 39(1), 77–93. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02619​768.2015.11006​02.
Instefjord, E., & Munthe, E. (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration of pro-
fessional digital competence in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 37–45. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.016.
Johannesen, M., Øgrim, L., & Giæver, T. H. (2014). Notion in motion: Teachers’ digital competence. Nordic
Journal of Digital Literacy, 9(04), 300–312.
Kabakci Yurdakul, I., & Çoklar, A. N. (2014). Modeling preservice teachers’ TPACK competencies based
on ICT usage. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 363–376. https​://doi.org/10.1111/
jcal.12049​.
Kelentrić, M., Helland, K. & Arstorp, A. (2017). Professional digital competence framework for teachers.
The Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education. 1–74. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/%C4%B0lknur/
Downloads/pfdk_framework.pdf
Kelentrić, M., Helland, K., & Arstorp, A. T. (2018). Professional digital competence framework for teach-
ers. (Report No. ISBN 978–82–93378–51–8). The Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education.
Kihoza, P. D., Zlotnikova, I., Bada, J. K., & Kalegele, K. (2016). An assessment of teachers’ abilities to
support blended learning implementation in Tanzanian secondary schools. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 7(1), 60–84.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology inte-
gration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with tech-
nology under situated professional development. Computers and Education, 59(4), 1109–1121. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2012.05.014.
Krumsvik, R. J. (2011). Digital competence in the Norwegian teacher education and schools. Högre utbildn-
ing, 1(1), 39–51.
Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Teacher educators’ digital competence. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 58(3), 269–280. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00313​831.2012.72627​3.
Krumsvik, R. J., Jones, L. Ø., Øfstegaard, M., & Eikeland, O. J. (2016). Upper secondary school teachers’
digital competence: Analysed by demographic, personal and professional characteristics. Nordic Jour-
nal of Digital Literacy, 11(3), 143–164. https​://doi.org/10.18261​/issn.1891-943x-2016-03-02.
Lázaro-Cantabrana, J., Usart-Rodríguez, M., & Gisbert-Cervera, M. (2019). Assessing teacher digital com-
petence: The construction of an instrument for measuring the knowledge of pre-service teachers. Jour-
nal of New Approaches in Educational Research (NAER Journal), 8(1), 73–78.
Lee, Y., & Lee, J. (2014). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration
through lesson planning practice. Computers and Education, 73, 121–128. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compe​du.2014.01.001.
Lindberg, O., Olofsson, A., & Fransson, G. (2017). Same but different? An examination of Swedish
upper secondary school teachers’ and students’ views and use of ICT in education. The International
Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(2), 122–132. https​://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT​
-09-2016-0043.
Liu, S. H., Tsai, H. C., & Huang, Y. T. (2015). Collaborative professional development of mentor teachers
and pre-service teachers in relation to technology integration. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 18(3), 161–172.
Maderick, J. A., Zhang, S., Hartley, K., & Marchand, G. (2016). Preservice teachers and self-assess-
ing digital competence. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(3), 326–351. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/07356​33115​62043​2.

13
How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers’…

McGarr, O. & McDonagh, A. (2019) Digital Competence in Teacher Education, Output 1 of the Erasmus+
funded Developing Student Teachers’ Digital Competence (DICTE) project. https​://dicte​.oslom​et.no/
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia medica, 22(3), 276–282.
Miguel-Revilla, D., Martínez-Ferreira, J. M., & Sánchez-Agustí, M. (2020). Assessing the digital com-
petence of educators in social studies: An analysis in initial teacher training using the TPACK-21
model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 1–12.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Moltudal, S., Krumsvik, R., Jones, L., Eikeland, O. J., & Johnson, B. (2019). The relationship between
teachers’ perceived classroom management abilities and their professional digital competence.
Designs for Learning, 11(1), 80–98. https​://doi.org/10.16993​/dfl.128.
Napal-Fraile, M., Peñalva-Vélez, A., & Mendióroz-Lacambra, A. (2018). Development of digital com-
petence in secondary education teachers’ training. Education Sciences, 8(3), 104–104. https​://doi.
org/10.3390/educs​ci803​0104.
Ottestad, G., Kelentrić, M., & Guðmundsdóttir, G. B. (2014). Professional digital competence in teacher
education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9(04), 243–249.
Palacios Hidalgo, F. J., Gómez Parra, M., & Huertas Abril, C. A. (2020). Digital and media compe-
tences: Key competences for EFL Teachers. Teaching English with Technology, 20(1), 43–59.
Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms: Sharpening
the focus of the ‘will, skill, tool’ model and integrating teachers’ constructivist orientations. Com-
puters and Education, 58(4), 1351–1359. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2011.12.013.
Pettersson, F. (2018). On the issues of digital competence in educational contexts–a review of litera-
ture. Education and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1005–1021. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1063​
9-017-9649-3.
Ranieri, M., & Bruni, I. (2018). Promoting digital and media competences of pre- and in-service teach-
ers. Research findings of a project from six European Countries. JE-LKS. Journal of E-Learning
and Knowledge Society, 14, 111–125.
Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu, JRC
Working Papers JRC107466, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
Reisoğlu, İ, & Çebi, A. (2020). How can the digital competences of pre-service teachers be developed?
Examining a case study through the lens of DigComp and DigCompEdu. Computers and Educa-
tion. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2020.10394​0.
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(04), 250–280.
Romero-García, C., Buzón-García, O., & de Paz-Lugo, P. (2020). Improving future teachers’ digital
competence using active methodologies. Sustainability, 12(18), 7798.
Samad, R. S. A., Wahab, H. A., Othman, A. J., & Ali, S. K. S. (2016). Teachers’ skill and information
and communication technology integration in teaching and learning process. Advanced Science Let-
ters, 22(8), 2066–2069.
Seufert, S., Guggemos, J., & Tarantini, E. (2018). Online professional learning communities for devel-
oping teachers’ digital competences.  15th International Conference on Cognition and Explora-
tory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2018), Budapest, Hungary. Retrieved from https​://files​.eric.
ed.gov/fullt​ext/ED600​631.pdf.
Silva, J. S., Usart, M. U., Lázaro-Cantabrana, J. L. L. C., Silva, J., Usart, M., & Lázaro-Cantabrana, J.
L. (2019). Teacher’s digital competence among final year Pedagogy students in Chile and Uru-
guay. Comunicar. Media Education Research Journal, 27(2), 31–40. https​://doi.org/10.3916/
C61-2019-03.
Smarkola, C. (2008). Efficacy of a planned model: Belief that contribute to computer usage intentions
of student teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1196–1215. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2007.04.005.
Starkey, L. (2019). A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge
Journal of Education. https​://doi.org/10.1080/03057​64X.2019.16258​67.
Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American
Journal of Evaluation., 27(2), 237–246. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10982​14005​28374​8.
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing
pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Com-
puters and Education, 59, 134–144. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2011.10.009.
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2016). Time for a new approach to prepare future
teachers for educational technology use: Its meaning and measurement. Computers and Education,
94, 134–150. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2015.11.009.

13
 İ. Reisoğlu

Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., van Braak, J., Voogt, J., & Prestridge, S. (2017a). Preparing beginning
teachers for technology integration in education: Ready for take-off? Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 26(2), 157–177. https​://doi.org/10.1080/14759​39X.2016.11935​56.
Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Pynoo, B., van Braak, J., Fraeyman, N., & Erstad, O. (2017b). Developing a vali-
dated instrument to measure preservice teachers’ ICT competencies: Meeting the demands of the 21st
century. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 462–472. https​://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.1238.
Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Prestridge, S., & Consuegra, E. (2018). A multilevel analysis of what matters in the
training of pre-service teacher’s ICT competencies. Computers and Education, 122, 32–42. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2018.03.002.
Tusiime, W., Johannesen, M., & Gudmundsdottir, G. (2019). Developing teachers’ digital competence:
Approaches for art and design teacher educators in Uganda. International Journal of Education and
Development using ICT, 15(1), 133–149.
Uerz, D., Volman, M., & Kral, M. (2018). Teacher educators’competences in fostering student
teachers’proficiency in teaching and learning with technology: An overview of relevant research litera-
ture. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 12–23. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.00.
Wasson, B., & Hansen, C. (2014). Making use of ICT: Glimpses from Norwegian teacher practices. Nordic
Journal of Digital Literacy, 1, 44–65.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. London: Sage Publication.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Yurdakul, I. K., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K., Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2012). The develop-
ment, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale.
Computers and Education, 58(3), 964–977. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2011.10.012.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13