Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(3)

participants’ DC. 
Pedagogical 
aspects on DC 
Esteve-Mon et 
al. (2020); 
Pettersson
(2018); Recio et al. 
(2020); Røkenes & 
Krumsvik (2014)
•
Justifications for DC in HE: meeting 
the new challenges of the digital 
society, enriching the teaching-
learning process, developing DC of 
students as a key competence and 
promoting content and professional 
development by using digital 
technologies. 
•
TDC composed of a series of 
technical skills, didactic application 
in the teaching-learning process, 
inclusion in professional development 
and the ability to develop the DC of 
students.
•
Teaching staff show an adequate DC 
at a basic level. DC has become a 
shared object between stakeholders in 
educational contexts with no 
consensus or common understanding 
for what DC is.
•
Supportive institutional 
infrastructures and concrete support 
measures are needed. 
•
HE institutions need to be 
able to respond to the new 
demands of digital 
education with adequate 
DC training for educators. 
•
DC development goals and 
visions should preferably 
be formulated in policy-
related documents on 
multiple levels of the 
educational system. 
•
School organisations 
should develop institutional 
infrastructures to develop 
competences needed for 
work in digitalised schools. 
•
School leaders should help 
staff formulate goals and 
recognise specific needs to 
reach these goals. 
•
Digital competent 
leadership should be 
thought of as a school-level 
characteristic. 

---

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(3). 
129 
•
Teachers and teaching practices: 
assumption that teachers are 
responsible for developing their own 
DC to meet the needs of students. 
•
DC can be expressed in different 
ways and initial training should 
reflect this. 
•
Students' previous experiences can 
generate positive mastery 
opportunities. 
•
Pedagogical approaches identified to 
develop DC: collaboration; 
metacognition; blending; modelling; 
authentic learning; student-active 
learning; assessment; and bridging 
theory/practice gap. 
•
HE faculty must encourage 
self-regulation of learning, 
show the usefulness of 
digital technologies and 
encourage their 
incorporation into the 
teaching and learning 
process. 
•
Reflective DC practice: 
Student teachers should be 
asked to discuss and reflect 
on the pedagogical and 
didactical value added 
when integrating ICT in 
their teaching. 
Revising 
the 
concepts 
and 
models of DC 
Duran et al. (2016); 
Palacios (2020); 
Spante et 
al. (2018)
•
Propose TDC model in HE through 
three frames: TDC in HE; TDC; 
General DC. 
•
Reviews 2 frameworks for DC 
development (Instituto Nacional de 
Tecnologias Educativa y Formaciond 
el Profesorado, 2017; Redecker & 
Punie, 2017), discussing central DC 
categories and areas for teacher 
training in HE. 
•
DL has been used more frequently 
and over a longer period and hence a 
more established concept in HE 
research. 
•
Regional differences of use appear: 
DL research often conducted in 
English speaking countries (UK, 
USA) and DC research in European 
countries outside the UK (Spain, Italy 
and Scandinavia). 
•
Need for development of 
training proposals for TDC 
in HE 
•
Need for ongoing 
evaluation of teacher-
training centres to diagnose 
ICT culture, infrastructure 
and services. 
•
Developing digital and 
media competency 
awareness during initial 
teacher training. 
•
A need for informed and 
conscious referencing to 
the established definitions 
of the concepts to avoid 
mismatches and validation 
problems.
•
Increased attention to when 
and for what purposes the 
definitions are employed. 
Note
. ICT = information and communication technologies. 
Tracking research trends on DC in HE, Sánchez-Caballé et al. (2020) examined the evolution of the concept 
of DC in relation to university students, concluding that the most frequently used DC dimensions include 
information skills, technical skills, content creation and media and communication skills. Aiming to explore 
teacher preparation for the digital age and identify what research focus is needed for the future, Starkey 
(2020) proposed a model which frames DC in three different ways: generic DC, digital teaching competence 
and professional DC and signalling the emergence of a professional DC profile which sets a new agenda 
for research and practice. Zhao et al. (2021) concluded that DC is often defined in a general way by referring 
to policy documents and related research. Several authors indicated that more clarity is needed around the 
DC concept (Sánchez-Caballé et al., 2020; Starkey, 2020), while Zhao et al. (2021) have argued for moving 
beyond TDC self-assessment research designs, proposing that applying practical DC tests may provide a 
better understanding of a participant’s DC. 
In considering pedagogical aspects on DC, several authors have agreed that teacher’s initial training is 
essential for DC development (Recio et al., 2020; Røkenes & Krumsvik, 2014). Esteve-Mon et al. (2020) 
claimed that HE teaching staff show an adequate degree of DC at a basic level, while Sánchez-Caballé et 
al. (2020) revealed that the current generation of students do not have a high level of DC. Pettersson (2018) 
underlined that school organisations should develop institutional infrastructures that support both their own 
and their staff’s development of the competences needed for work in digitalised schools. Røkenes and 
Krumsvik (2014) proposed a reflective approach to DC as an implication for practice, asking student 
teachers to critically discuss and reflect on the pedagogical aspects and didactical value added when 
integrating ICT in their teaching. 

---

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(3). 
130 
Among those interested in revising concepts and models of DC in HE, Palacios et al. (2020) reviewed two 
frameworks – DigCompEdu (Redecker & Punie, 2017) and the common framework for DC from the 
National Institute for Educational Technology and Professional Development (Institutio Nacional de 
Tecnologia Educativa y Formacion del Profesorado, 2017) – which can serve to develop DC awareness 
during initial teacher training, while Duran et al. (2016) proposed a TDC model for HE through three frames 
to support professional practice: TDC in HE, TDC and general DC. In reviewing concept use of DC and 
digital literacy in HE research, Spante et al. (2018) concluded that digital literacy has been used more 
frequently and over a longer period and thus is a more established concept compared to DC, arguing for 
informed and conscious referencing to established definitions. Also, regional differences appear between 
the two concepts, where digital literacy research is often conducted in English speaking countries, while 
DC research in European countries outside the United Kingdom. 
•
RQ3: What is the quality of published systematic reviews on TDC research in HE? 
To assess the quality of the included reviews, we used the JBI (2017) checklist, which consists of 10 items. 
As shown in Table 4, the quality of the included reviews ranged considerably, and this variability will 
impact on the interpretation and implications for practice and research. Three clusters of quality emerged, 
with those in the highest range scoring between 8 and 9 on a quality score out of 10. The middle-quality 
cluster scored between 6.5 and 7.5, and the lower third scored between 5 and 6, a relatively low threshold 
for inclusion. As noted earlier, 10 reviews were excluded by not meeting the pre-established quality 
threshold of 5, an unanticipated result. The average total quality score was 6.75, and no review met all the 
criteria. 
Table 4
Critical appraisal of included reviews 
Author 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
Score 
Røkenes & Krumsvik (2014)
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
0 
0 
+ 
+ 
+ 
9 
Spante et al. (2018)