Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(3).
127
multiple languages related to their geographic origin. Combining English and Spanish (22.5%) was the
most common search combination. Publication dates ranged from 2000 to 2021, with the average range
from 2007 to 2016. Although some reviews used only one database to search (15%), most used two (38%)
or three (23%). The most commonly used databases were Web of Science (61%), Scopus (54.5%) and
ERIC (54.5%).
Table 2
Characteristics of included reviews
Author
Setting and context Included
studies
First author geographic affiliation
and language
Date range of
included studies
Duran et al. (2016)
TDC in HE
13
Spain;
Spanish
2005–2016
Esteve-Mon et al. (2020) TDC in HE
43
Spain;
English
n/r
Fernández-Batanero et al.
(2020)
TT & TPD
21
Spain; English
2008–2018
Palacios et al. (2020)
TDC in HE
68
Spain; English
2009–2018
Perdomo et al. (2020)
TDC in HE
26
Peru; Spanish
2010–2020
Pettersson (2018)
DC
development in
HE
41
Sweden; English
2008–2017
Recio et al. (2020)
DC development in
HE
18
Spain; Spanish
2014–2019
Rodríguez-García et al.
(2019)
TT & TPD
154
Spain; Spanish
2009–2017
Røkenes & Krumsvik
(2014)
TT & TPD
42
Norway; English
2000–2013
Sanchez-Caballe et al.
(2020)
DC development in
HE
126
Spain; English
2006–2017
Spante et al. (2018)
DC development in
HE
107
Sweden; English
1997–2017
Starkey (2020)
TT & TPD
48
New Zealand; English
2008–2018
Zhao et al. (2021)
DC development in
HE
33
Spain; English
2015–2021
Note
. TDC in HE = teacher digital competence in higher education; TT & TPD = teacher training and teacher
professional development; DC = digital competence development in HE; n/r = not reported.
In relation to the types of studies included in the reviews, many (38%) omitted this information. Among
those that reported (62%), the most commonly included study type was quantitative (61%), followed by
qualitative (46%), mixed methods (38%) and theoretical papers (38%). A total of 84% reported including
peer-reviewed and indexed studies as a criterion for inclusion. Turning to the type of review reported by
the authors, the majority reported a systematic literature review (53%), while others reported using a meta-
analysis and/or bibliometric study (15%), or variations such as bibliometric study (7.5%), bibliometric and
documental review (7.5%), literature review method (7.5%) or qualitative literature review (7.5%). When
examining whether review authors used critical appraisal tools, we were surprised to find that few (15%)
reported assessing for quality of the included primary studies. Concerning the method of synthesis reported
by review authors, the majority involved a form of content analysis and descriptive synthesis. Qualitative
content analysis (46%) was inferred in just under half the studies, as the authors did not explicitly report
synthesis methods in these cases, while content analysis (15%) and thematic content analysis (15%) were
also used. To support the critical synthesis and presentation of evidence, literature summary tables are an
essential technique, reported in a majority of studies (77%).
•
RQ2: What are the implications for practice for TDC development in HE suggested in these
reviews?
The phenomenon of interest, synthesised findings and implications for practice are shown in Table 3. When
examining the phenomenon of interest, we grouped selected studies into the following categories: research
trends on DC in HE (
n
= 6), pedagogical aspects on DC (
n
= 4) and revising the concepts and models of
DC (
n
= 3).
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(3).
128
Table 3
Presentation of phenomenon of interest, synthesised findings and implications for research and
practice
Phenomenon
of
interest
References
Synthesised findings
Implications for practice
Research
trends on DC in
HE
Fernández-
Batanero et al.
(2020); Perdomo et
al. (2020);
Rodríguez-Garcia
et al. (2019);
Sánchez-Caballé et
al. (2020); Starkey
(2020); Zhao et al.
(2021)
•
ICT training main element for teacher
professional development.
•
Teacher collaboration and use of
technological resources as a factor for
improvement.
•
Teachers unqualified in DC, with
insufficient ICT training: despite
favourable teacher attitude towards
technologies.
•
TDC
in HE research should be
reoriented due to lack of research that
goes beyond descriptive research
based on teacher self-perceptions.
•
Significant impact identified in DC
research in HE generated by the
definition of the key competences
that every citizen must possess.
•
Most frequently used terms are
“digital literacy” and “digital
competence”
•
Most frequently used DC elements:
Information skills, technical skills,
content creation/media skills,
communication.
•
Proposed model frames DC in three
ways: generic DC; TDC;
professional
DC.
•
DC in HE research defined in a
general way by referring to policy
documents and related research.
•
Students are more frequently studied
than teachers.
•
DC level of teachers and students is
at a basic or medium level.
•
Need for revising and/or
developing curricula to
incorporate TDC for future
professionals.
•
Importance of digital
teacher training for the
development
of student
DC.
•
Recognise the link between
teaching competence and
pedagogical leadership for
educational innovation
•
More clarity is needed
around the concept of DC.
•
A need for DC
development strategy for
youth and/or students.
•
University staff and
educators should adapt
their
training to the pace of
technological evolution.
•
Emergence of a
professional DC profile,
setting new agenda for
research & practice.
•
Applying a practical test of
digital tasks may provide a
better understanding of
Dostları ilə paylaş: