Next Article in Journal
Thermal Sensation in Courtyards: Potentialities as a Passive Strategy in Tropical Climates
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of Smartphone Use on Emotional, Cognitive and Educational Dimensions in University Students
Previous Article in Journal
A Simulator to Determine the Evolution of Disparities in Food Consumption between Socio-Economic Groups: A Brazilian Case Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Coping Strategies in the Family and School Ecosystem
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 15
10.3390/su12156134
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Uses of ICT Tools from the Perspective of Chilean University Teachers

by
Verónica Marín-Díaz
1,*,
Irma Riquelme
2 and
Julio Cabero-Almenara
3
1
Departament of Education, University of Cordoba, 14701 Córdoba, Spain
2
Undergraduate Teaching Directorate, Academic Vice-Rectory, Autonomous University of Chile, Santiago de Chile 7500912, Chile
3
Department of Innovation Educative, University of Sevilla, 41113 Seville, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(15), 6134; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156134
Submission received: 19 June 2020 / Revised: 24 July 2020 / Accepted: 27 July 2020 / Published: 30 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Teacher Training in Active Methodologies for Ecosystem Learning)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The use of the ICT in university learning processes is linked to their use by the educator. This aspect will determine the use of some resources over others, and consequently, the prevalence of some methodologies over others. The main objective of this work is to determine the use of the ICT by university educators, and from this, to determine which elements will define the design of a training program on the use of the ICT. For this, and with the use of an ex post facto method with a sample of n = 1113 subjects, the main result obtained was that the male professors utilized the digital tools more often for their teaching tasks. Furthermore, those with less professional experience preferred to use tools found in the cloud. Thus, it is concluded that the model of training observed from the demonstrated use of digital resources is linked to the preoccupation of education professionals for caring for the digital environment, and this model should be designed as a function of the methodologies and the system of evaluations utilized by the professors.

1. Introduction

The appearance of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in the education sphere has brought with it changes that have affected the two main actors of the education process, students and educators. In the case of the former, their social reality has invaded their academic one through the introduction of digital resources such as videogames [1,2,3], Augmented and Virtual Reality [4,5], Applications (Apps) that they already used in their everyday life [6,7], the new virtual learning environments supported by tele-training platforms [8], etc., to their learning process. Today’s university students are catalogued as “millennials”, students who were born in the digital era, and as a result, their link with technological resources is greater than in previous eras, where the students had a more analogical profile.
As for the latter, the professors, it has been observed that they find themselves in a two-sided moment. On the one hand, they have to or need to update their teaching methods [9], and on the other, they must be in a continuous learning process, given that the continuous development of the digital tools implies the appearance of new resources or the improvement or disappearance of the existing ones, so that their use in teaching is contingent to this continuous educational renewal.
According to [10], the professors use the ICT timidly, due to a series of aspects related to the lack of previous training; the lack of infrastructure or resources provided by the universities [11,12], their attitudes and previous beliefs [9,13], their motivations [14] or feelings [15], or their resistance towards their use [11,13], etc.
Nevertheless, their use in the classroom has been increasing, for better or worse. However, just as in [16], we believe that the key element needed for the professors to utilize the digital tools in their classrooms is contingent upon their perception about the tools in general and about specific ones in particular. Thus, the works by [17,18] show that resources for sharing information such as blogs are thought of as elements that will help with their student’s learning, given that it will revitalize the acquisition of vocabulary, improve their writing techniques, and foment debate among them. Furthermore, the use of Augmented Reality [4,5], in this case experiences in which the educators have enriched the notes provided to the students with this technology, has highlighted the better understanding of the contents, the availability of the material in a virtual format motivates learning [19], and the creation of new scenarios in which to practice what is learned [20]. Likewise, the addition of social networks to teaching has implied a change in the methodological process of the educator. The work by [17] shows how the use of Twitter has promoted relationships between students, just as it has contributed to the students learning about how to establish work criteria without the need for the teacher to impose them.
The present study will also allow us to determine the digital competence of the educators, given that the use of ICT tools is determined by the digital competence they possess [21,22].
The literature on the digital competence of educators found is broad, just as the instruments created for measuring it. At the European level, we find the Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu) [22], and more specifically in Spain, the Ministry of Education, through the INTEF, created a framework for the development of this competence. Focusing our attention on the Latin American context, and more specifically in the Chilean context, the Ministry of Education has promoted ENLACES [23], through which the standards for the pedagogic training of the professors were established, although those related to the digital competence were not specified. This results in that the differences between what the professor knows, and the resources used for teaching, are not in line with the learning expectations of the students.
In general, research on higher education and digital training has brought to light that the educators feel the need for training programs on the specific use of the ICT in their own curricular context [22,24,25]. As a result, the promotion of the use of the digital resources currently available, as well as the development of the digital competence of the professors, is needed. Thus, to promote all of these aspects, the study of the use of the digital resources by the professors is needed at present, given that by virtue of the aspects mentioned previously, the professors will utilize those instruments they are more comfortable with in their teaching. The digital education environment, which is now demanded, involves, on the one hand, an institution that provides technological and human resources to meet the demands that society asks from the higher education institutions. This is none other than an education environment where the digital competence of the student is achieved throughout higher education, so that once incorporated to the professional world, the student can contribute to the production system. On the other hand, there is the need for the professors to also be digitally competent, to know the resources available, and to have the ability to incorporate them into their teaching tasks in an efficient manner. It is this knowledge which will create an environment where the diverse digital tools available in the market will help students to become familiar with them, helping the teacher to contribute to the enrichment of the university institution in general, and society in particular. The current digital scenario of the universities finds itself at a boiling point and in a state of evolution, along with the addition of the technological resources for teaching for which training is not offered or is scarce, and with its growth in the hands of the professor’s willingness to use them.
On the other hand, elements such as gender or professional experience are variables that can influence the understanding of ICTs and the particular use of them. There are several examples in the literature regarding the differences between women and men concerning ICTs use. We can find some research that supports differences in favour of men, and other research concerning women [26,27,28]. In conclusion, we can see that there is no common point between the research community.
Therefore, it is necessary to know which tools they utilize the most, to determine the type of training that needs to be covered by the education institutions [21,29], as they are the ones responsible for offering their educators the strategies necessary to become trained and up to date. In this sense, the main objective of this work is to determine the degree of use of the digital tools by Chilean professors, in order to establish the training parameters needed for the development of the digital competence of the Chilean university educators.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methods

The design of the research study utilized a descriptive approach with the use of a cross-sectional quantitative survey, defined as such due to the numerical and reliable nature of the data collected and the use of a deductive and structured research strategy [30]. More specifically, an ex post facto method of study was utilized. Therefore, the objective will be obtained a posteriori, as point out by [30].
Starting with the general objective presented above, the following specific objectives were established:
  • Specific objective 1: To determine the existence of differences related to the use of digital tools by the professors depending on gender.
  • Specific objective 2: To clarify the existence of differences on the use of the digital tools as a function of the years of professional experience.
  • Specific objective 3: To establish the elements that determine the use of digital tools.
Starting with these objectives, the following working hypotheses were posited:
Hypothesis 1. 
The women use the digital tools more compared to the men.
Hypothesis 2. 
The professors with less professional experience utilize digital tools to a greater extent than the older ones.

2.2. Participants

The participating sample was composed of n = 1113 professors from the INTEC University in Chile, and the guidelines established by [31] were followed for their selection. Of these, 31.8% were women and 68.2% men, with an average age of 41–50 years old. The mean years of professional experience was 6–10 years (see Table 1). From the total, 64.4% indicated not having pedagogical training on the use of the ICT in the classroom.

2.3. Instrument

For the collection of data, an adaptation of the instrument designed by [32] was utilized. This adaptation was performed at the linguistic level, given that the original was written in Spanish from Spain, and had to be adapted to Chilean Spanish. Furthermore, descriptive variables of the samples were modified. In the end, the questionnaire was composed by 58 items, which were distributed into 2 dimensions. The first corresponded to the demographic study of the participating sample, and if they had or not pedagogical training linked to the ICT, for a total of 4 items; and the second dimension referred to the use of the digital tools by the educator, comprised of 54 items. The response scale utilized was Likert-type with 7 options, where 1 was “I never use it”, and 7 was “I always use it”.
The reliability test, Cronbach’s Alpha, provided a value of α = 0.9779, a very high value according to the literature [32], thereby indicating that the instrument had a high reliability.
The Exploratory Factorial Analysis (EFA) performed to determine the validity was conducted through the extraction of principal axis factoring and Kaiser-normalized varimax rotation with self-values higher than 1. The instrument was adjusted to 8 factors which explained 62.96% of the variance, as factorial loads higher than 0.40 were considered [33], showing acceptable Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin variables (KMO = 0.965) [34,35,36], and a significant Bartlett’s sphericity (χ2 (1321) = 13,000.220 and p < 0.001). The resulting 8 dimensions had Alpha values that were very similar to the original instrument [32] (see Table 2).
To verify the viability of the 8 dimensions established by the EFA, a confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA) was performed with the “Maximum Likelihood” utilized as the method of estimation. It verified the existence of 8 factors and eliminated 3 items that had a score lower than 0.90, and which affected factors 2 and 4 (see Figure A1) [37].
To assess the goodness-of-fit of the model identified, the following were considered: a χ2/degrees of freedom test, the comparative fit index, the incremental fit index and the normed fit index, the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the root mean residual (RMR), the root means square error or approximation (RMSEA) and the expected cross validation index (ECVI), with the following values found:
The set of indices provides adequate values (χ2/df with values of 1.43, values lower than 0.06 in the case of the RMSEA and SRMR; and values higher than 0.90 for CFI, IFI, NFI and NNFI [32,33], which verifies the model of factors proposed and with it, guaranteeing the validity of the construct of the instrument (see Table 3).
Sub-dimension 1, which referred to the methodology that the teacher uses in the classroom and that links to their perception and/or beliefs regarding the incorporation of technologies into the classroom and to the evaluation of the student, included items such as “I know how to maintain a balanced attitude in the use of technology”, “I have criteria to evaluate the reliability of the sources of information”, or “I know how to combine digital technology with the analogical one for searching for solutions”. The second one includes items that refer to the use of instruments to develop collaborative learning, the creation of videos, the gamification of the classroom or the creation of QR codes. The third dimension encompasses items that refer to the resolution of the management and storage in the cloud, while the fourth adds to them their safe use and the protection of the student and the educator during their use when learning. The fifth sub-dimension encompasses items such as availability of spaces for updating and teaching digital competence for the classroom, the digital identity, tending to diversity in the classroom, etc. The sixth covers aspects related to the care of the digital environment due to the use of digital tools. The last two sub-dimensions group items that refer to the knowledge of software such as the digital blackboard, open projects and resources in the case of the seventh sub-dimension, and as for the eighth, it is related to the knowledge about the availability of software for information and being informed. Lastly, it was verified that the α values followed the patterns established for the instrument as a whole.

2.4. Procedure

The study is based on a positivist paradigm, commonly used in quantitative research, and is explanatory in nature, given that it seeks to define the variables that are conditioned or related between each other [34]; more specifically, the use of the ICT by Chilean professors in their everyday tasks in the classroom. For this reason, a sample of university professor was selected, after asking for the necessary permissions from the legal officers, as specified in the ethical guidelines of research.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The analysis of the data was quantitative, starting with a basic description of the variables (measured as the central tendency and dispersion); afterwards, a multivariate analysis was performed with multiple regression analysis. A general analysis was utilized to seek a model that explained the use of the ICT by Chilean university professors for teaching in their classrooms, and a more specific one related to other predictive elements that determine the sample, all of these were performed with the statistical program SPSS v.23.

3. Results

The initial analysis of the behavior of the items (see Table 4) indicated that the participating sample was inclined towards using the ICT a few times in the classroom, as well as in their professional development. However, it should be underlined that the professors indicated not using the following ICT very much in the process of teaching: tools such as gamification and podcasts in class, or the production and/or creation of QR codes, and the different licenses needed to publish content and Augmented Reality. On the other hand, it should be highlighted that the tools that were most utilized were those that referred to the creation of presentations on the curricular content as well as navigating the internet in search of information.
If we focus our attention on the professor’s gender, we verify, with Student’s t-test (see Table 5), that only two sub-dimensions showed differences, and that these were in favor of the men, so that it can be inferred that they have a greater use of the tools for the creation of learning and those linked to their safety online. Thus, the first hypothesis is rejected which stated that women used the ICT tools more.
On the other hand, to verify if there were significant differences as a function of years of teaching experience, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed, which indicated that there were only differences in the third dimension [F(6.1106 = 2.388, p = 0.027)] between the professors who had between 6 and 10 years of professional experience, and those with more than 30 years of experience [t (1106) = 3.32, p = 0.019, η2 = 0.006], while the multiple comparisons indicate that the other dimensions were not significant, as indicated by the Bonferroni values (see Table 6).
As shown in Table 7, the sub-dimensions established by the EFA performed correlated between themselves with a level of significance of 0.001, which indicates a good relationship between the 54 items of the instrument.
Lastly, to verify is there was an explanatory model for the use of the digital tools by the Chilean professors, a stepwise multiple linear regression was performed [F(1.1111) = 131.249, p < 0.005], with the variable that determined it being the methodology of attention to the student and the system of evaluation (constant/MAA), showing an adjusted level of determination of R2 = 0.07 and a Durbin–Watson value of 1.957 (close to 2, which indicates the interdependence of the residues, [35,37,38]) (see Table 8).
This indicates that the equation that explains MAA = −0.033 + 0.084CDE, implies that the methodology of attention to the students and the system of evaluation used by the professors (MAA) is associated the care of the digital environment (CDE). The tests performed with the residues of this regression show that the values of VIF > 1.0 (see Table 7), indicating non-multicollinearity. Likewise, the homoscedasticity and the linearity of the residues observed in the figures comply with the assumptions [30]; and lastly, the application of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality test (Z = 1.576 and p = 0.014) to the residues verifies the existence of this linearity.

4. Discussion

The discussion should start with the premise that ICTs contribute to the improvement of the teaching-learning process, although it should not be assumed that their use per se will result in an improvement or substantial change in the final result of the teaching action [39]. Starting with this idea, it should be considered that this change goes hand in hand with the use of the digital resources by the professors. In light of this, it was verified that the Chilean university professors who participated in this study, in agreement with other works [17,29], need training on the use of ICT for their implementation in their classrooms, as the degree of training received for their use, as indicated by them, was low. This indicates that there is a demand for a training structure for the professional development of the educators in the digital arena [13,16,40].
In general, the Chilean professors consulted sometimes utilized ICT in their classrooms, which denotes a low use of the digital resources, as opposed to the works by [11,13,41], who pointed out the great deployment of the technological elements utilized by the professors in their classrooms. It is significant that while some research studies report on the great use of digital tools [11]—mainly Augmented Reality [4,19,20], gamification [1,2,3], podcasts [11,42], and software use licenses [43]—in this study, the participants indicated using them very little, as compared to the presentation tools such as PowerPoint, Genially or Prezi, which the professors indicated using them very often. All of this could be due to the scarce digital training possessed by the professors, as indicated by them.
It is significant that the search for information online was one of the actions performed, just as the professors from other countries or institutions [11,39].
However, not all the educators thought the same. In this sense, the men were more inclined towards the development of digital methodologies and systems of evaluation, in contrast to the studies by [18,41], who indicated that women were more prone towards this. As a result, hypothesis 1 must be rejected (The women use the digital tools more as compared to the men), just as the results from the study by [26,27,43,44,45,46,47], and in contrast to the results found by [26,29,48,49] whose research determined this aspect as a possible creator of a gender digital divide [50]. In this sense, it should be indicated that the academic community does not seem to have reached a consensus about the variable gender, as shown by different studies conducted about the topic [26,29,44,45,46,47,48,49]. As a result, it is interesting to utilize this variable linked to the context.
Focusing on the years of professional experience of the professors (specific objective 2), it was found that the educators with 6–10 years of professional experience, considered to be young [51], were the ones who were more inclined towards the use of the tools that are available online to store information, such as Dropbox or Google Drive, as well as to create presentations by utilizing resources such as Genially, or to manage the monitoring of access through remote desktops [11,29,50], compared to those with greater teaching experience, who depend more on the traditional methodology [52]. In this case, hypothesis 2 is accepted just as in the works from [51,53], who pointed to a technical profile in the use of the ICT of the educators as a function of the years of professional experience.
Lastly, the study conducted, which aimed to determine which elements have an effect on the use of the ICT by Chilean professors (objective 3) has shown that a single element is responsible, which is none other than the methodology of attention and evaluation, which interacts directly with the caring for the digital environment. This element indicates that the use of the ICT by the Chilean university professors is linked with the methodology and the system of evaluation, and this is in turn affected by those methods or systems that are related to the digital environment, so that the professor’s professional development occurs as a function of these variables [50].
As a result of this, we consider that a training strategy, the target population of which is the educator, should first of all relate the different tools with the diverse methodologies that the professors could use.
Various studies [50,52,54,55,56,57,58] have stated that the educators feel self-conscious due to a lack of technological skills and the fact that the students have a greater knowledge in this field, and as a result, a greater digital competence. For this, the presentation of teaching innovation experiences which show their viability is indispensable and necessary to be able to provide support and a response to the online digital training needs, in line with that proposed by [54,57]. On the other hand, the design of a training program will need the creation of a repository of digital resources bundled according to subjects and levels of difficulty.

5. Conclusions

The main conclusion of the present work is that Chilean university professors need pedagogical training on digital resources, which will allow for the development of their digital competence. Along this line, it should be indicated that the educators in general demand training, but afterwards there is a decrease in the number of educators that link their professional development with the demand of theoretical-practical training that will allow them to update their methodologies. The social and professional demand of today imply that the professors possess digital skills and competencies and are able to transform the knowledge transmitted to the students through the use of diverse digital resources.
On the other hand, it was verified that the university institutions are responsible for implementing a training program that allows the educators to place value on the pedagogic usefulness of said resources if they want to be at the forefront of higher education. In this sense, it established that the participating professors have a more technological view on the use of the ICT in the classroom as opposed to a pedagogical one, and this is reason why this variable should be utilized in the training processes implemented by the institutions.
We considered that the institutions are not experiencing great transformations in the field of the development of the educator’s digital culture, and the fact that the growth is dependent on the will of the educators has resulted in the stagnation of the education centers.
For this, three aspects are vital as the pillars of education proposals: work methodologies linked to digital resources, an efficient system of evaluation with a digital format, and caring for the digital environment through the use of tools designed for this purpose. In conclusion, it is necessary to provide Chilean professors with an attractive education proposal that is not rooted in their willinginess to improve and that promotes the professor’s initiative.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.M.-D.; I.R. and J.C.-A.; methodology, V.M.-D.; validation, V.M.-D.; formal analysis, V.M.-D.; investigation, I.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Sustainability 12 06134 g0a1 550
Figure A1. Eight-factor model. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Figure A1. Eight-factor model. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Sustainability 12 06134 g0a1

References

  1. Guerra, J.; Pedrera, M.I.; Revuelta, F.I. Percepción de habilidades docentes a través de las emociones mediante el uso de videojuegos de temática social. Edmetic 2018, 7, 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Serna-Rodrigo, R. Posibilidades de los videojuegos no serios para el aprendizaje formal de la lengua y la literatura. Edmetic 2020, 9, 104–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pechenkina, E.; Laurence, D.; Oates, G.; Eldridge, D.; Hunter, D. Using a gamified mobile app to increase student engagement, retention and academic achievement. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2017, 14, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Villalustre, L. Propuesta metodológica para la integración didáctica de la realidad aumentada en Educación Infantil. Edmetic 2020, 9, 170–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aznar, I.; Romero, J.M.; Rodríguez, A.M. La tecnología móvil de Realidad Virtual en educación: Una revisión del estado de la literatura científica en España. Edmetic 2018, 7, 256–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Martínez, A. Aprendizaje móvil en Educación Física. Una propuesta de innovación en ESO. Innoeduca 2019, 5, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Norton, E.; Li, Y.; Mason, L.R.; Washington-Allen, R.A. Assessing the Impact of a Geospatial Data Collection App on Student Engagement in Environmental Education. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Blanco, A.; Anta, P. La perspectiva de estudiantes sobre los entornos virtuales de aprendizaje en la educación superior. Innoeduca 2016, 2, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Singhavi, C.; Basargekar, P. Barriers Perceived by Teachers for Use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the Classroom in Maharashtra, India. Int. J. Edu. Dev. Using Inf. Comm. Technol. 2019, 15, 62–78. [Google Scholar]
  10. Tapasco, O.A.; Giraldo, J. Comparative Study about Perception and use of ICT among Teachers of Public and Private Universities. Form. Univ. 2017, 10, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Ramírez, M.; Maldonado, G.A. El uso de TIC y la percepción del profesor universitario. Int. J. Edu. Res. Innov. 2015, 5, 195–208. Available online: https://www.upo.es/revistas/index.php/IJERI/article/view/1628 (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  12. Hung, M.L. Teacher readiness for online learning: Scale development and teacher perceptions. Comp. Educ. 2016, 94, 120–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Drossel, K.; Eickelmann, B.; Gerick, J. Predictors of teachers’ use of ICT in school-the relevance of school characteristics, teachers’ attitudes and teacher collaboration. Edu. Inf. Technol. 2017, 22, 551–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rivera-Laylle, L.I.; Fernández-Morales, K.; Guzmán-Games, F.J.; Eduardo-Pulido, J. La aceptación de las TIC por profesorado universitario: Conocimiento, actitud y practicidad. Rev. Elect. Educ. 2017, 21, 99–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Moreira-Fontán, E.; García-Señorán, M.; Conde-Rodríguez, A.; González, A. Teachers’ ICT-related self-efficacy, job resources, and positive emotions: Their structural relations with autonomous motivation and work engagement. Comput. Educ. 2019, 134, 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hatlevik, I.K.R.; Hatlevik, O.E. Students’ evaluation of digital information: The role teachers play and factors that influence variability in teacher behaviour. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 83, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Carpenter, J.P.; Krutka, D.G. Engagement through microblogging: Educator professional development via Twitter. Prof. Dev. Educ. 2015, 41, 707–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Prestridge, S. Categorising teachers’ use of social media for their professional learning: A self-generating professional learning paradigm. Comput. Educ. 2019, 119, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fernández, B. Factores que influyen en el uso y aceptación de objetos de aprendizaje de realidad aumentada en estudios universitarios de Educación Primaria. Edmetic 2017, 6, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Moreno, N.M.; Leiva, J.J. Experiencias formativas de uso didáctico de la realidad aumentada con alumnado del grado de educación primaria en la universidad de Málaga. Edmetic 2017, 6, 81–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Zhang, Z.; Nielsen, W. Instructors’ Perspectives and Use of ICT in Two Teacher Education Programs. In Proceedings of the 2018 Seventh International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT), Auckland, New Zealand, 12–14 December 2018; pp. 106–110. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cabero-Almenara, J.; Palacios-Rodríguez, A. Marco Europeo de Competencia Digital Docente «DigCompEdu». Traducción y adaptación del cuestionario «DigCompEdu Check-In». Edmetic 2020, 9, 213–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Consejo Nacional de Educación (2018) Indices Indicadores Educación Superior. Available online: https://www.cned.cl/indices (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  24. Quiroz, J.E.S.; Ansola, J.L.L.; Miranda-Arredondo, P.; Reyes, R.C. El desarrollo de la competencia digital docente durante la formación del profesorado. Opción Rev. Cien. Hum. Soc. 2018, 86, 423–449. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ferrari, A. DIGCOMP. A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe. Available online: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC83167/lb-na-26035-enn.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  26. Siddiq, F.; Scherer, R. Is there a gender gap? A meta-analysis of the gender differences in students’ ICT literacy. Educ. Res. Rev. 2019, 27, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Krumsvik, R.J.; Jones, L.Ø.; Øfstegaard, M.; Eikeland, O.J. Upper secondary school teachers’ digital competence: Analysed by demographic, personal and professional characteristics. Nor. J. Dig. Lit. 2016, 11, 143–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Bhattacharjee, B.; Deb, K. Role of ICT in 21st century’s teacher education. Inter. J. Educ. Infor. Stu. 2016, 6, 1–6. Available online: http://www.ripublication.com/ijeis16/ijeisv6n1_01.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  29. Cabero, J.; Roig, R.; Mengual, S. Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge of Future Teachers according to the TPACK model. Dig. Edu. Rev. 2017, 32, 85–96. Available online: https://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/der/article/view/16981/pdf (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  30. Mateo, J. La investigación ex post-facto. In Metodología de investigación Educativa, R. Bisquerra; La Muralla: Madrid, Spain, 2012; pp. 195–229. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mantilla, F. Métodos Estadísticos Exploratorios y Confirmatorios para Análisis de Datos; ESPE: Quito, Ecuador, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tourón, J.; Martín, D.; Navarro Asencio, E.; Iñigo, V. Validación de constructo de un instrumento para medir la competencia digital docente de los profesores (CDD). Rev. Esp. Ped. 2018, 76, 25–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mavrou, I. Análisis factorial exploratorio. Cuestiones conceptuales y metodológicas. Rev. Nebrija Lingüística Apl. Enseñanza Leng. 2015, 19, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Coe, R.; Waring, M.; Hedges, L.V.; Arthur, J. Research Methods and Methodologies in Education, 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  35. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gil, J.A. Metodología Cuantitativa en Educación; UNED: Madrid, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  37. Arias, B. Desarrollo de un ejemplo de análisis factorial confirmatorio con LISREL, AMOS y SAS. In Metodología en la Investigación Sobre Discapacidad; Introducción al uso de ecuaciones, estructurales; Verdugo, M.A., Crespo, M., Badía, M., Arias, B., Eds.; Publicaciones del INICO: Salamanca, Spain, 2008; pp. 75–124. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hancock, G.R.; Stapleton, L.M.; Mueller, R.O. The Reviewer´s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gellerstedt, M.; Babaheidari, S.; Svensson, L. A first step towards a model for teachers’ adoption of ICT pedagogy in schools. Helyon 2018, 4, e00786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Tondeur, J.; Forkosh-Baruch, A.; Prestridge, S.; Albion, P.; Edirisinghe, S. Responding to challenges in teacher professional development for ICT integration in education. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2016, 19, 110–120. [Google Scholar]
  41. Turpo, O. La usabilidad pedagógica en la formación del profesorado: Un estudio de caso. Espacios 2018, 39. Available online: http://www.revistaespacios.com/a18v39n15/18391506.html (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  42. Soto Rojas, A.D.; Murillo Yañez, J.; Perdomo Sanciprián, G. El uso de podcast educativo como herramienta innovadora para el aprendizaje del italiano en el nivel empresarial. Edutec 2016, 57, a344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Miranda, G.A. Educación y software libre. Rev. Cienc. Soc. Humanid. Apoyadas Por Tecnol. 2017, 6, 9–16. Available online: https://chat.iztacala.unam.mx/cshat/index.php/cshat/article/view/84 (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  44. Aranda, L.; Rubio, L.; DIgusto, C.; Dumitrache, C. Evaluación del uso de las TIC en estudiantes de la Universidad de Málaga: Diferencias de género. Innoeduca 2019, 5, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Álvarez-Sigüenza, J.F. Nativos digitales y brecha digital: Una visión comparativa en el uso de las TIC. RAEIC 2018, 6, 203–223. Available online: http://revistaeic.eu/index.php/raeic/article/view/186/167http://revistaeic.eu/index.php/raeic/article/view/186/167 (accessed on 7 July 2020). [CrossRef]
  46. Baloğlu, M.; Çevik, V. Multivariate effects of gender, ownership, and the frequency of use on computer anxiety among high school students. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2008, 24, 2639–2648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Romero, R.; Cabero, J.; Barroso, J. E-Learning of Andalusian University’s Lecturers. Gender. TOJET 2016, 15, 25–37. [Google Scholar]
  48. Guillén-Gámez, F.D.; Ruiz-Palmero, J.; Sánchez-Rivas, E.; Colomo-Magaña, E. ICT resources for research: An ANOVA análisis on the digital research skills of higher education teachers comparing the areas of knowledge within each gender. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Guillén-Gámez, F.D.; Mayorga-Fernández, M.J.; Bravo-Agapito, J.; Escribano-Ortiz, D. Analysis of Teachers’ Pedagogical Digital Competence: Identification of Factors Predicting Their Acquisition. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2020, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Marín, V. Las Creencias Formativas del Profesorado Universitario; Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba: Córdoba, Spain, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  51. Acosta, R.; Martín, A.; Hernández, A. Uso de las Metodologías de Aprendizaje Colaborativo con TIC: Un análisis desde las creencias del profesorado. Dig. Educ. Rev. 2019, 35, 309–323. [Google Scholar]
  52. Del Prete, A.; Cabero, J. El uso del Ambiente Virtual de Aprendizaje entre el profesorado de educación superior: Un análisis de género. RED 2020, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cariaga, R. Experiencias en el uso de las TIC análisis de relatos de docentes. Cien. Doc. Technol. 2020, 29, 131–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Arancibia, M.L.; Cabero, J.; Marín, V. Creencias sobre la enseñanza y uso de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC) en docentes de educación superior. Form. Univer. 2020, 13, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zempoalteca, B.; Barragán, J.F.; González, J.; Guzmán, T. Teaching training in ICT and digital competences in Higher Education System. Apertura (Guadalaj. Jal.) 2017, 9, 80–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Fernández-Márquez, E.; Leiva-Olivencia, J.J.; López-Meneses, E. Competencias digitales en docentes de Educación Superior. Rev. Dig. Investig. Doc. Univ. 2018, 12, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Solís, J.; Jara, V. Competencia digital de docentes de ciencias de la salud de una universidad chilena. Pixel Bit 2019, 56, 193–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ortuzar, M.; Menéndez, A.; Iriondo, A.; de Luis, A.; de Blas, M.; Caballero, B. Uso de TIC en la Universidad del País Vasco—Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU). Experiencia de un grupo especializado en innovación educativa. Univers. Tarrac. 2019, 1, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Description of the sample.
Table 1. Description of the sample.
Variables %
AgeLess than 305.5
31–40 y.o.23.9
41–50 y.o.33.7
51–60 y.o.25.4
Older than 6011.5
Years of professional experienceLess than 5 years20.8
6–10 years28.8
11–15 years16.9
16–20 years13
21–25 years6.9
26–30 years8.8
More than 307.6
Have pedagogical training on the use of the ICTYes, trained35.4
No, no training64.6
Table
Table 2. Dimension 2: Sub-dimensions of the questionnaire.
Table 2. Dimension 2: Sub-dimensions of the questionnaire.
Sub-DimensionNo. ItemsAlpha Value
1. Methodology of attention and assessment (MAA)190.957
2. Tools for the creation of learning (TCL)60.876
3. Cloud-based tools (CBT)60.863
4. Safety and protection of learning (SPL)50.882
5. Tools for teaching in the classroom (TTC)70.894
6. Care of the digital environment (CDE)40.755
7. Open ICT (OICT)30.696
8. ICT for information (ICTI)40.740
Table
Table 3. Adjustment index of the model.
Table 3. Adjustment index of the model.
χ2dfpχ2/dfCFIIFINFINNFI (TLI)RMSEAECVI
Values4063.410740.0003.7830.9020.9260.9020.9120.0504.199
Table
Table 4. Behavior of the sub-dimensions.
Table 4. Behavior of the sub-dimensions.
Sub-DimensionMin.Max.M.SDAsymmetryKurtosis
11.07.077.123129.231280.019−0.894
21.07.018.71439.827980.544−0.668
31.07.028.62088.12846−0.236−0.718
41.07.019.72518.624450.040−1.026
51.07.025.150010.646120.240−0.799
61.07.016.52566.18462−0.080−0.793
71.07.08.63704.344780.661−0.047
81.07.020.04224.34478−0.518−0.172
Table
Table 5. Student’s t-test according to gender.
Table 5. Student’s t-test according to gender.
DimensionGendern.M.SDtpCohen’s D
2Women3541664979.14544−4.9920.000−0.31
Men75919.67729.99142
4Women35417.03958.13649−7.3940.000−0.47
Men75920.97768.56441
Table
Table 6. ANOVA.
Table 6. ANOVA.
Dependent Variable(I) 6.-Years of Experience in Teaching(J) 6.-Years of Experience in TeachingMean Difference (I-J)Typical ErrorSig.95% Confidence Interval
Lower LimitUpper LimitLower LimitUpper LimitLower Limit
Dimension 3Between 6 to 10 yearsLess than 50.296540.697841.000−1.82852.4215
11 to151.153840.743731.000−1.11093.4186
16 to 201.389640.810301.000−1.07783.8571
21 to 251.724441.027621.000−1.40484.8537
26 to 300.390171.101471.000−2.96393.7443
+303.28701 (*)0.987850.0190.27896.2951
* = Two-tailed level of significance at 0.001.
Table
Table 7. Correlational study.
Table 7. Correlational study.
SD.1SD.2SD.3SD.4SD.5SD.6SD.7SD.8
SD.1R1
P
SD.2R0.837 (**)1
P0.000
SD.3R0.723 (**)0.685 (**)1
P0.000.000
SD.4R0.786 (**)0.747 (**)0.681 (**)1
P0.000.000.000
SD.5R0.846 (**)0.791 (**)0.673 (**)0.669 (**)1
P0.000.000.000.000
SD.6R0.814 (**)0.683 (**)0.613 (**)0.641 (**)0.733 (**)1
P0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
SD.7R0.625 (**)0.649(**)0.554 (**)0.485 (**)0.693 (**)0.534 (**)1
P0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
D.8R0.682 (**)0.585 (**)0.701 (**)0.559 (**)0.671(**)0.602 (**)0.500 (**)1
P0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
** = Two-tailed level of significance at 0.001; D = Dimension.
Table
Table 8. MAA linear regression.
Table 8. MAA linear regression.
VariablesBE. SBetatSig.Zero OrderPartial RSemi-Partial RToleranceVIF
M. 1Constant−0.0330.026 −1.2560.005
CMAD0.0840.0300.0852.8330.0050.0850.0850.0851.0001.000

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marín-Díaz, V.; Riquelme, I.; Cabero-Almenara, J. Uses of ICT Tools from the Perspective of Chilean University Teachers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6134. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156134

AMA Style

Marín-Díaz V, Riquelme I, Cabero-Almenara J. Uses of ICT Tools from the Perspective of Chilean University Teachers. Sustainability. 2020; 12(15):6134. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156134

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marín-Díaz, Verónica, Irma Riquelme, and Julio Cabero-Almenara. 2020. "Uses of ICT Tools from the Perspective of Chilean University Teachers" Sustainability 12, no. 15: 6134. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156134

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop