Improving Future Teachers’ Digital Competence Using Active Methodologies

: Contemporary society demands a university education based on active and participatory educational models that enable the development of competences, with digital competence being amongst the most demanded ones. This work presents the results of an educational innovation at the university level. It intends to analyse whether the implementation of an active methodology supported by technological tools in a virtual classroom contributes to students’ digital development. A quantitative methodology with a pre-experimental pretest-posttest design was used. The sample comprised 30 students studying the Curriculum Design module on the Biology and Geology Specialism of the Master’s in Teacher Training at the Universidad Internacional de la Rioja. The results show an improvement in the ﬁve areas of the digital competence speciﬁed by the Common Framework for Teachers’ Digital Competence (MCCDD) established by Spain’s National Institute of Educational Technologies and Teacher Training (INTEF), with a large e ﬀ ect size. It is concluded that the educational experiment implemented has enabled an increment in the level of digital competence of future teachers.


Introduction
Nowadays, students have to learn to live in a globalised, digitised, intercultural, and changing society that produces vast quantities of information. Therefore, students' learning needs require ways of teaching that are different from those used 20 years ago [1,2]. For some years, we have been experiencing a transition from an education model centred on teaching and content transmission towards a methodological model focused on the acquirement of competencies. However, university education has traditionally been based on a lecturer-centred educational model that emphasises the transmission of knowledge and its reproduction by the students, the lecturer's lesson, and individual work [3].
One of the strategic objectives of the European Commission in the field of education and training ("ET2020") is to encourage innovation and creativity, promoting the acquisition of transversal competences, including digital competence, by all citizens [4].
Digital competence is one of the eight key competencies that every person should have developed upon completion of compulsory education to be able to adapt quickly to a rapidly changing world with multiple interconnections [5]. 21 competences in 5 areas (Table 1), while DigCompEdu distinguishes six different areas in which the educator's Digital Competence is expressed with a total of 22 competences ( Table 2). The Common Framework is described in Table 1. These are the basis of the instrument used in the present research for evaluating teachers' digital competence, which was previously validated by Tourón et al. [16].  ICT does not in itself produce improvements in learning unless students are regarded as people who are capable of thinking [33]. Taking this into account, we have used a teaching design based on collaborative learning in which students play a key role and are the main protagonists of their learning process. It has been proven that collaborative learning offers numerous benefits for the students' learning process [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41].
However, we must be clear about what we mean when we talk about collaborative learning. In the classic definitions of Johnson and Johnson (1987) [42] and Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1991) [43], the emphasis is placed on the interdependence between individual and group effort and learning, since each member of the group is responsible, both for their learning, and that of the other members, and in the motivation to help each other in order to achieve common goals. If these premises are produced in an adequate way, collaborative methodologies can improve the learning process.
Among the main advantages of collaborative learning methodology through ICT are the following: (a) academic benefits, such as promoting metacognition and allowing students to exercise a sense of control over the task; (b) social benefits, by encouraging students to see situations from different perspectives and creating an environment where students can practice social and leadership skills, as well as facilitating the integration of students with learning difficulties; (c) psychological benefits, by providing a satisfactory learning experience, reducing student anxiety [34,36,40].

Sample
The experiment was developed in the group taught by the authors of the present paper. Therefore, the sampling used was non-probability convenience. A total of 30 students participated in the research. These students were taking the Curriculum Design module in the Biology and Geology specialism of the Master's in Secondary and Baccalaureate Teacher Training in the Faculty of Education at the Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), a wholly online university, during the 2018-2019 academic year. Out of these students, 61.7% were women and 38.3% men, and 19.56% are doctors and 80.43% are graduates, with a mean age of 32.3 years. As noted, the mean age of online students is greater than at universities that use face-to-face teaching, where the mean age of male students is 23.2 and for female students 22.9 [43]. Regarding previous teaching experience, 62.4% of the students have none, 16.8% have less than 1 year, 16% have between 1 and 3 years, and 4.8% have over 5 years' experience.

Research Design
To evaluate the results of the educational intervention programme implemented, we used a quantitative methodology with a pre-experimental design using a pretest and posttest group. This research design is appropriate when carrying out research practices within natural contexts, such as a classroom. In these situations, group equalizing techniques do not offer full control of certain variables (characteristics of the subjects, previous experiences, etc.) and are therefore not the most adequate approach [44]. The programme is based on a collaborative learning methodology supported by various digital tools. The syllabus for the module, comprising 14 topics, was delivered in 15 virtual live sessions of 120 min duration each, which took place once a week, and 5 sessions of 60 min that were spread throughout the semester. The sessions were delivered synchronously in a virtual classroom using the Adobe Connect software, which enables the teacher to play video and audio, share the blackboard and material, exchange comments with students through an interactive chat function, and divide the class into independent breakout rooms that simulate the distribution into groups in a face-to-face class where each group works independently.
Twenty working sessions were designed in which the students performed collaborative activities synchronously in the virtual classroom, putting theoretical content into practice and developing and/or fostering digital competence. These activities were supported by digital content creation, collaboration, and evaluation tools ( Table 3). Table 3. Types of activity performed and digital tools used.

Activity Digital Tools
Designing a Treasure Hunt The activity consists in designing a treasure hunt in the format of a web page using Google Sites (https://sites.google.com/). The activity starts with an introduction where the study topic is presented and associated with reality in an attractive way. A series of questions are then set. The students then research the questions using a number of web pages selected by the teacher. Finally, the main question is set, which is the problem to be solved using the information obtained in the answer to the questions.

Reading and discussing a document
Use of the Perusall app (https://perusall.com/) to read a document on the key competences students should develop in secondary education and make comments proposing activities for working on the competences. The document is shared in class and a discussion is held.

Simulating a departmental meeting
In groups, the teachers in training, or future teachers simulate a departmental meeting to reach agreements on methodology and evaluation prior to drawing up a unit plan. These agreements are noted down on a collaborative digital wall (http://linoit.com).

Collaborative mind map
Drawing up a collaborative mind map using the Mindmeister tool (https://www.mindmeister.com/) showing the sections a unit plan should have.
Preparing a unit plan Designing a unit plan in a shared document (https://docs.google.com/document/).

Designing a video
Designing a motivational video to present the content of a unit plan (https://screencast-o-matic.com/).

Designing an escape room
Preparing an escape room in Google Sites. This is a way of using gamification in which learning achievements are proposed in the form of different challenges to be solved in a team. To do this, a narrative or context that frames the challenges that the participants have to overcome is proposed, making the experience more attractive. Overcoming the challenges posed and receiving rewards guides students to advance towards a final goal or solution to a complex problem.

Creating evaluation problems
The Kahoot (https://create.kahoot.it/) and Socrative (https://socrative.com/) tools are used for detecting preconceptions and self-evaluation at the end of an activity.
Designing a rubric Designing a rubric to evaluate the escape room using the Rubistar tool (http://rubistar.4teachers.org/).
The teaching design used in the virtual classroom was as follows. Content was presented and students' preconceptions were detected using videos recorded by the lecturer and enriched with questions on the Edpuzzle platform (https://edpuzzle.com/) or documents shared with the students using the Perusall app. The lecturers could review students' answers to the questions in the videos and the comments they made on the document to establish, in advance of the virtual class, whether students were clear about the theoretical concepts necessary to tackle the corresponding session. In both cases, the students' answers and/or comments were shared and the class started with a session on doubts on this content that the lecturer could see caused the greatest difficulty. In some sessions, the content was presented through an explanation by the lecturer, supported by a presentation, and students' preconceptions were detected at the start of the class via a brainstorm written up on a notepad.
Once the content presentation and/or solving of doubts were complete, 10 min were spent explaining the activity to be performed and the digital tool to be used. The activities were done synchronously online. In them, the students first used the tools as learners and then learnt to use them from the point of view of the lecturer. To do this, the lecturer shared a document with the students setting out the objectives, the content to be covered, the procedure to follow to do the activity, and the evaluation. Next, working groups of 4-6 people were set up using the "create breakout rooms" function of the Adobe Connect platform.
During the activity, the lecturer moved around the groups to give students feedback on their work. Once the session had ended, the teacher reviewed the work and sent students corrections and comments on the completed activity using the forum function.

Instrument
The study variable after the intervention was the students' digital competence. To determine changes in the level of digital competence caused by the educational intervention, a questionnaire validated by Tourón et al. was used [16]. This comprises five dimensions based on the five areas established in the Common Framework for Teachers' Digital Competence developed by INTEF [8]: Information and Data Literacy, Communication and Collaboration, Digital Content Creation, Safety, and Problem Solving. Each dimension comprises a variable number of items, which are evaluated using two Likert-type scales (1 Not at all-2 Very little-3 A little-4 Somewhat-5 A lot-6 Very much-7 Completely), one of which relates to knowledge of the item in question and the other to how the students use it. This questionnaire is considered to be suitable for measuring the level of competence of the future teacher and was applied at two different points-at the start of the module and after completing it-to determine whether levels of digital competence changed after carrying out the learning experience in comparison with the level established at the start.
The questionnaires were prepared using Google Forms and were shared with the students through the lecturer-student communication forum in the learning platform normally used.

Data Analysis
Firstly, to check whether the data on digital competence obtained followed a normal distribution, we used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Secondly, we used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to analyse levels of digital competence before and after the intervention and to verify whether any changes occurred. Finally, for all of the comparisons of groups, we calculated the effect sizes (Cohen's r), where values of r = 0.10 are regarded as low, r = 0.3 medium, r = 0.5 large, and r = 0.7 very large [45]. We organised, codified, and analysed the data using the SPSS 26.0 statistics package.

Results
The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with the Lillefors correction and the Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that the pretest-posttest data did not have a normal distribution (0.918, p = 0.002 in the pretest and 0.907, p = 0.001 for the posttest). In order to establish whether there was an increase in students' level of digital competence, we analysed the results before the experience (pretest) and after the experience (posttest), with the aim of establishing whether there were changes. As the variables do not have a normal distribution, we used nonparametric statistics, specifically Wilcoxon's W test.
Analysing each area globally, we found statistically significant differences in all of them. If we observe the effect size (Tables 4 and 5  If we examine each of the areas in depth, we can see different results. In the first one, Information and Data Literacy, there are statistically significant differences between the pretest and the posttest ( Table 6) in all of the items on the "Knowledge" scale. On the other hand, on the "Use" scale, there are also significant differences in all of the variables except in IL3 (z = −1.066, p = 0.286) and IL6 (z = −1.904, p = 0.057). If we analyse the effect size, we find that there is a medium effect on both scales for all items, except for item IL7, where on the "Knowledge" scale we find a very large effect size (r = 0.71) and on item IL4, where on the "Use" scale the effect is medium (r = 0.37). In the Communication and Collaboration area, there are statistically significant differences between the pretest and the posttest ( Table 7). On the "Knowledge" scale, these differences are present in all of the variables, while on the "Use" scale, the differences are present in all of the variables apart from CC1 (z = −1.872, p = 0.061). Analysing the effect size, we find that there is a large effect in both of the scales analysed in all items in the area, except for item CC3 where the effect size is medium (r = 0.37 on the "Knowledge" scale and r = 0.41 on the "Use" scale). With regards to the Digital Content Creation area, there are again statistically significant differences between the pretest and the posttest (Table 8). On the "Knowledge" scale, differences are present in all variables except DC3 (z = −1.467, p = 0.142). Meanwhile, on the "Use" scale, differences are apparent in all of the variables except for DC3 (z = −1.264, p = 0.206), DC4 (z = −1.817, p = 0.069), and DC12 (z = −1.602, p = 0.109). If we analyse the effect size, we find that, on the "Knowledge" scale, there is a large effect for all variables apart from DC1 (r = 0.70), DC8 (r = 0.75), and DC16 (r = 0.72), where the effect is very large. In contrast, on the "Use" scale, the effect size is large for all variables apart from DC1 (r = 0.47) and DC2 (r = 0.42), where the effect size is medium. In the "Safety" area, there are also statistically significant differences between the pretest and posttest (Table 9). In this case, on the "Knowledge" scale, there are differences in all of the variables apart from S2 (z = −1.772, p = 0.076), while on the "Use" scale, differences are present in all of the variables apart from S1 (z = −1.400, p = 0.162) and S3 (z = −1.331, p = 0.183). If we analyse the effect size, we find that on the "Knowledge" scale there is a large effect for all variables apart from S7 (r = 0.64), where the effect is large. As for the "Use" scale, the effect size is medium for all variables apart from S4 (r = 0.52) and S7 (r = 0.62), where the effect size is large. Finally, in the Problem Solving area there are again statistically significant differences between the pretest and the posttest (Table 10). On the "Knowledge" scale, differences are present in all variables except PS2 (z = −0.851, p = 0.395). On the other hand, on the "Use" scale, there are also differences in all of the variables except in PS2 (z = −1.012, p = 0.311) and PS3 (z = −1.008, p = 0.313). If we analyse the effect size, we find that, on the "Knowledge" scale, there is a very large effect for all variables apart from PS1 (r = 0.43) and PS3 (r = 0.39), where the effect is medium. The opposite is the case on the "Use" scale, where there is a medium effect for all variables apart from PS1 (r = 0.59), PS9 (r = 0.51), PS11 (r = 0.67), and PS12 (r = 0.64), where the effect size is large, and for variables PS8 (r = 0.75) and PS10 (r = 0.77), where the effect size is very large.

Discussion
Digital competence has become a transversal one that every member of society needs in order to ensure active participation in the 21st century. It is also a key competence for future teachers. The development of digital competence in the education system means that teachers are trained in it, something that involves making them capable of using ICT appropriately as a methodological resource integrated into the teaching and learning process [46]. This is why in this work we have presented a teaching design proposal based on an educational model that integrates knowledge of the subject being delivered, the most appropriate didactic methods for the subject and the students, and the most appropriate technological tools in order to teach specific content better. This model is based on one of the reference models, the T-PACK model proposed by Koehler,Mishra,and Cain [18], which enjoys considerable support for training teachers as it integrates technology into the classroom effectively, allowing training in digital competence [47][48][49].
The experience presented here has contributed to improving future teachers' skills in the five digital competence areas established by INTEF [8]. The future teachers improved globally in the Information and Data Literacy area, developing strategies for searching for and managing information in different formats, and in criteria for critically evaluating the selected information. Their knowledge of tools for storing files and shared content such as Drive, Dropbox, and Office 365 and of channels for selecting educational videos improved, but their use of them did not. Although these resources are integrated into the proposed activities, their use in learning activities should perhaps be strengthened.
Focusing on the Communication and Collaboration area, there was an improvement in both knowledge and use of collaborative learning tools, with the exception of forums and chat programs. Forums and chat programs are commonly used in everyday life and students are very accustomed to using these tools as part of the virtual teaching carried out in this fully online university. We noted a greater improvement in the competence regarding rules for behaviour online in the educational context. Command of collaboration tools is key for future teachers. The studies by Carrió [36], García-Valcárcel et al. [39], Kolloffel, Eysink, and Jong [34], and Lee and Tsai [40] determined that collaboration between students improves learning. Designing ICT-based collaborative learning activities gives greater independence and motivation and options for adapting to students' different levels.
Previous studies [50] focusing on the Digital Content Creation area have shown that university students have a low competency level. However, the present study shows that, after implementing the teaching design, there is an improvement in the knowledge and use of evaluation tools, and in some tools that facilitate learning such as mind maps and infographics, and applying gamification in the classroom. The future teachers discovered the potential of ICT for content creation. However, with tools relating to the creation of presentations or videos, there was an improvement in knowledge but not use of them, even though one of the activities proposed was to create a video. These results underline the importance of incorporating experiences in the classroom to improve this area of digital competence. The studies by Cabezas, Casillas, and Pinto [51], Cózar and Roblizo [21], Prendes, Castañeda, and Gutierrez [52], Romero, Hernández, and Ordoñez [53], Romero-Martín et al. [25], Garzón Artacho et al. [54], Pozo-Sánchez et al. [15] and Napal Freire et al. [26] found a low level of training of future teachers in use of digital educational resources. It is a very important area of digital competence for teachers, who need to know how to manage the use of ICT in the classroom and have skills for selecting, adapting, and creating teaching materials and for evaluation in digital settings [55].
In the Safety area, the results again underline an improvement in most of the competences associated with this area in both the Knowledge and Use scales. The improvement observed in competences relating to the responsible and healthy use of digital technologies is especially noteworthy. No changes were observed in the use of devices for the protection of virus threats and of document protection systems. However, the learning experiment carried out was more focused on improving the areas set out previously as we considered those to be more relevant when providing future teachers with the skills related to learning in the classroom.
Finally, we observe improvements in most of the competencies that comprise the Problem Solving area of digital competence, related to learning to solve problems through digital means, using technologies creatively to generate knowledge, and identifying areas for improvement in one's own competence. We draw attention to a major improvement in basic skills for teachers, such as the use of tools for evaluating, tutoring, or monitoring students and in creative teaching activities to develop students' digital competence, as well as in the use of spaces to continue training and updating digital competence. In recent years, other studies have also shown the effectiveness of technology for generating pedagogical or technological knowledge or knowledge related to the use of technology in teaching methodologies [12,17,27].
Some prior studies [11,15,23,26,33,56] have shown that command of digital tools is still a challenge in the training and professional development of teachers. Nonetheless, pedagogical use of these tools is vital for tackling the education of new generations in the digital age. In the study by Romero-Martín et al. [25], teachers in secondary education believed that digital competence was fundamental for improving teaching and learning processes. Nonetheless, in most cases, teacher training in digital competence is frequently limited to solely instrumental questions, neglecting the implementation of innovative teaching practices involving these technologies [57][58][59]. Digital competence cannot be developed using models based on mere knowledge transmission; it requires ICT to be integrated into learning activities [29,32,60]. In this sense, we underline the importance of the study presented, which integrates ICT into activities related to the planning and development of the teaching and evaluation of students' learning, achieving holistic training in digital competence for future teachers. Training future teachers in this competence is key for integrating ICT into the curriculum in educational practice and for the training of secondary education students in a competence that is essential for the personal development and future professional development of our students [61,62].

Conclusions
We conclude that future teachers, after studying a module which implements a pedagogical proposal based on active methodologies supported by digital tools, have improved in all of the digital competence areas proposed by INTEF [8] (Information and Data Literacy, Communication and Collaboration, Developing Digital Content, Safety, and Problem Solving). Therefore, we suggest the use of this online learning methodology and propose the continuation of research in the area of activity design of activities in order to achieve a greater command of the competencies in which the implemented innovation has had the least impact. We also believe it is important to repeat the study with a larger sample of students from the Master's in Teacher Training.
It would also be of interest to incorporate proposals of this type into other modules to contribute to better training in digital competence for future biology, geology, and secondary education teachers, as well as extending this experience to other specialties on the master's degree in question. Another potential line of research focuses not only on perceptions but also on the design of instruments for real measurement of digital competence.