A Systematic Review on the Level of Digital Competence of In-Service Spanish Teachers According to the DigCompEdu Framework

Abstract

Digital training is one of the main challenges for in-service non-university teachers. In recent years, the DigCompEdu framework has gained momentum in non-university education, with several training activities taking place within this theoretical framework. This paper develops a systematic review that aims to analyze the studies that analyze the level of digital competence of in-service teachers in the different dimensions of the DIGCOMPedu framework. The PRISMA protocol for this type of study was followed and an exhaustive search was carried out in the WoS and Scopus databases, obtaining a total of seven studies (n = 7) that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results of the review show an average low level in all dimensions, especially in the ability and skill of enhancing the digital competence of students. On the other hand, possible predictors of the digital competence of teachers are elucidated, among which experience and previous ICT training stand out, among others that the recruited studies show. These results could reflect the need to support training policies that promote not only instrumental training in educational technology but the importance of how to transfer this to teacher examples and didactic guidelines on how to promote digital environments conducive to developing the digital competence of their students.

1. Introduction

Contemporary society is immersed in a process of digital transformation that affects all areas, from the economic and social to the educational. This phenomenon has redefined forms of communication, interaction and access to knowledge, consolidating itself as a structural element in most of today’s labor dynamics (Marimon-Martí et al., 2022).

In this context, the educational system still faces the challenge of integrating so-called information and communication technologies (ICTs) in teaching and learning processes. This process is not only about integrating technology into teaching processes but also about forming critical, creative and competent citizens in an increasingly digitized environment (Verdú-Pina et al., 2023; Garzón Artacho et al., 2020). According to Van Laar et al. (2020), digital competencies have become a determining factor for professional and personal success in the current era. This places the teacher in a strategic role to ensure the development of these skills in their students (Saienko et al., 2022).

In this line, the development of so-called digital teaching competence (hereinafter DTC) has acquired central relevance in recent years in the scientific literature (Palacios-Rodríguez et al., 2025). This competence, in the words of Ferrari (2013), is configured by a set of knowledge, skills and attitudes that allow educators to integrate digital technologies effectively, ethically and creatively in their professional practice.

While it is true that progress has been made in the recognition of the importance of digital competence after these events, its effective integration into curricular design and educational policies still faces structural and contextual obstacles (Hernández et al., 2021). Among these are the heterogeneity of training opportunities, the resistance to change in some sectors of teaching staff and the lack of accompanying strategies that facilitate the development of practical skills for the integration of technologies in the classroom (Vega et al., 2021).

• The DigCompEdu framework 

Bodies such as the European Commission (2017) have developed key reference frameworks, such as the DigCompEdu (Redecker & Punie, 2017), which establishes the areas and levels of competence that educators must achieve to meet the challenges of digital education in the 21st century. This framework highlights that DTC not only involves the technical use of digital tools but also the ability to design innovative pedagogical strategies adapted to the needs of the student body. Likewise, institutions such as the National Institute of Educational Technologies and Teacher Training (INTEF) in Spain have adapted these international guidelines, publishing the Framework for Digital Competence in Teaching (2022), which provides a tiered system of professional development for teachers to advance from basic levels to experts in their digital integration.

This framework organizes teacher digital competence into six key areas: professional engagement, digital resources, digital pedagogy, assessment, student empowerment and the facilitation of students’ digital competence (see

Table 1. DigCompEdu dimensions. From Redecker (2017/2020).

Dimension	Description
1. Professional commitment	Use of digital technologies for communication, collaboration and digital development.
2. Digital content	Search, creation and exchange of digital content.
3. Teaching and learning	Management and organization of use of digital technologies in teaching and learning.
4. Evaluation and feedback	Use of digital technologies and strategies to improve assessment.
5. Student empowerment	Use of digital technologies to enhance inclusion, personalization and active engagement of students in their own learning.
6. Development of students’ digital competence	Empowering students to creatively and responsibly use digital technologies for information, communication, content creation, wellness and problem solving.

) (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2023). However, the implementation of these competencies continues to face significant challenges, particularly in contexts such as primary education, where the development of students’ digital skills must be balanced with their cognitive and emotional needs at this stage (Bayrak Karsli et al., 2023).

2. Antecedents

In relation to the importance of DTC, multiple studies have pointed out that primary school teachers tend to show a positive perception towards the use of digital technologies, although this attitude does not always translate into an effective pedagogical application (Mattar et al., 2022). For example, the work of Instefjord and Munthe (2017) highlights that, although teachers recognize the relevance of digital tools in learning, the lack of adequate training and unequal access to technological resources limit their practical implementation. Similarly, Hatlevik et al. (2018) stress that the effective integration of digital technologies depends not only on teachers’ technical skills, but also on their ability to design pedagogical activities that promote meaningful learning.

On the other hand, recent research has addressed the impact of continuing education programs based on the DigCompEdu framework. For example, Zhang et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis that showed how training programs designed under the principles of this framework significantly improve teachers’ perception of digital self-efficacy. This same study suggests that training should be contextualized, focused on pedagogical practice and accompanied by evaluation strategies to measure the real impact on student learning. Focusing on the Spanish context, Durán et al. (2019) evaluated the impact of DC training programs designed according to DigCompEdu on secondary education teachers. The results indicated significant improvements in the areas of “Teaching and learning” and “Digital resources”, although challenges persist in the use of tools for student empowerment.

However, there is no consensus on the areas that require further development, since other studies, such as Cabero-Almenara et al. (2022) have analyzed the need to promote the dimension of DC facilitation in students among university professors. Teachers, according to their results, indicate that they do not have sufficient skills to be able to develop digital skills in their students. Finally, the work of Sánchez-Caballé et al. (2020) highlighted the relevance of the areas of digital pedagogy and evaluation as the most challenging for teachers. According to the results of their study, although teachers showed a basic mastery in the search and selection of digital resources, they experience greater difficulties in the planning and execution of activities that integrate these technologies in a cross-cutting manner. This finding highlights the need to strengthen initial and continuous training, with emphasis on methodological aspects and curricular adaptation to the demands of the digital era.

Finally, regarding the existence of predictors of the level of DTC, the work of Calvani et al. (2021) has highlighted the relationship between teachers’ digital competence and educational equity. According to their findings, teachers with higher digital competencies tend to generate more inclusive learning environments, which is crucial in contexts where the digital divide is more pronounced. On the other hand, there is no consensus on other factors, such as gender, with disparate results depending on the sample of subjects or the type of educational stage (Sánchez-Prieto et al., 2021). Finally, it seems that there is a greater correlation between age (Moreno-Guerrero et al., 2021) and professional experience (Ferrando-Rodríguez et al., 2024) as factors indicative of a greater self-perception of DTC.

Based on this background, this article seeks to synthesize the recent literature on DTC, focusing on the implementation of the DigCompEdu framework in studies with in-service teachers. From this objective, the following research questions were formulated

• What is the average score of in-service teachers according to the DigCompEdu framework?
• Are there differences in the self-perception of DTC depending on the educational stage at which the teacher teaches?
• Which instrument is the most commonly used to measure from this theoretical framework?
• Are there other possible predictors of the level of the self-perceived development of DTC by each teacher?

3. Method

The present study follows the guidelines of the PRISMA protocol (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) for the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. This protocol ensures a rigorous, transparent and reproducible methodology (Moher et al., 2009). This review was designed to identify studies that apply the DigCompEdu framework in an educational setting, specifically those studies whose sample is made up of in-service teachers.

3.1. Implementation of Search

The production search was performed based on three key concepts: “DigCompEdu”, “application” and “Spain”. In order to make the search as complete as possible, Boolean operators such as “OR” were used to add synonyms to make the search process more complete. Similarly, the “AND” operator was used to associate the key concepts of the search. To formulate the search equation, an analysis of the terms in the UNESCO Thesaurus (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and the European Education Thesaurus (Educational Resources Information Center [ERIC]) was carried out beforehand.

With respect to the databases in which the research was carried out, Web of Sciences (the Web of Science Core Collection, KCI-Korean Journal Database, Current Contents Connect, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Citation Index, MEDLINE, Preprint Citation Index, SciELO Citation Index, DIOSIS Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews and Derwent Innovations Index) and Scopus were selected. The reason for this choice is the prestige and rigor contrasted by these two repositories, in addition to guaranteeing the presence of scientific articles indexed as SJR and JCR. In this way, the search equation was defined, as shown in

Table 2. Search equation used in Web of Sciences and Scopus databases.

Web of Sciences	Nº
TS = (“DigCompEdu” OR “Digital Competence Framework for Educators” OR “Marco Europeo de Competencia Digital Docente”) AND TS = (“Spain” OR “Spanish context” OR “contexto español” OR “España”) AND TS = (“application” OR “implementation” OR “use” OR “aplicación” OR “implementación” OR “uso”)	22
Scopus
(TITLE-ABS-KEY(“DigCompEdu” OR “Digital Competence Framework for Educators” OR “Marco Europeo de Competencia Digital Docente”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Spain” OR “Spanish context” OR “contexto español” OR “España”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(“application” OR “implementation” OR “use” OR “aplicación” OR “implementación” OR “uso”))	24

.

3.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

After defining the questions and, with them, the search equation and the data sources, the inclusion and exclusion criteria (

Table 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria (IN)	Exclusion Criteria (EX)
IN1: Scientific articles	EX1: Non-peer-reviewed papers
IN2: Publications from 2020 to September 2024	EX2: Articles
IN3: Research that took place in the Spanish context.	EX3: Research carried out in another country.
IN4: Publications written in English or Spanish.	EX4: Publications not written in English or Spanish.
IN5: Quantitative research	EX5: Qualitative research, reviews or other types of work.
IN6: Open access	EX6: Restricted access

) were defined according to the premises of the PRISMA statement (Page et al., 2021). To this end, the following aspects were taken into account:

-

Time frame: we took as reference the last five years (since 2020), with the aim of also analyzing the existing results in the COVID-19 and post era.

-

Type of studies: the studies recruited were scientific articles and peer-reviewed, a method that guarantees the quality of the publication.

-

Context: according to the objective of the research, the search perimeter was limited to research that took place in educational centers of different stages in Spain.

-

Language: for the correct selection and interpretation of the data offered in the articles selected by the researchers, articles written in English and Spanish were included.

-

Methodology: quantitative studies are included in the review, in which a specific sample is applied to which a measurement instrument is applied.

-

Subject matter: articles were selected based on the DigCompEdu as a framework of knowledge about the development of digital competence in the samples under study.

-

Accessibility: in order to base this work on a transparent and replicable methodology, open access articles were selected.

Refworks was used as a bibliographic management tool to organize the information from the studies obtained in the searches. From this website, each publication was labeled according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and a rigorous justification was made as to whether they met the requirements for inclusion in the systematic review.

Finally, Figure 1 shows the flow diagram characteristic of this type of work, which shows the different phases that took place until the final sample of articles was obtained. The final sample of documents after the filtering phases was 7 (n = 7).

4. Results

Table 4. Journal of publication of articles and educational stage.

Reference	Journal Published	Educational Stage
Ferrando-Rodríguez et al. (2024)	Bordón: Revista de Pedagogía	Higher education
Romero-Tena et al. (2024)	Bordón: Revista de Pedagogía	Early childhood
Andaluz-Delgado et al. (2023)	Education Sciences	Non-university teachers.
Ferrando-Rodríguez et al. (2023)	Reifop: Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado	Higher education
García-Delgado et al. (2023)	Future Internet	Non-university teachers.
Martín-Párraga et al. (2023)	Societies	Higher education
Rubio-Gragera et al. (2023)	Education Sciences	Lifelong learning

shows the journals in which the selected papers have been published. The journal Education Sciences, from MDPI, has a total of two articles, as does the journal Bordón: Revista de Pedagogía.

With respect to the educational stages on which the studies are focused, there is variety, as samples from the university, non-university and language teaching fields are elucidated.

4.1. Methodological Design

All the selected studies followed an ex post facto cross-sectional methodology, with a descriptive character. Most of the studies applied inferential techniques with the aim of extracting significant differences between the dependent and independent variables that make up the study.

Regarding the instrument used to measure the responses, the most widely used was the DigCompEdu Check-In scale, designed by Ghomi and Redecker (2018) and published by the Joint Research Center (JRC) of the European Commission (2018), in its version translated into Spanish.

It is a Likert scale of five intervals. In this scale, each competency in the six DTC areas is represented by a single item. For each item, participants indicate the extent to which it reflects their own teaching practice by selecting one of the five options. These are organized progressively, through an internal scoring system from 0 to 4 points. Therefore, the maximum number of points per question is 4, and the maximum number of points to be obtained in the test is 88.

The instrument was translated and adapted to the Spanish context by Cabero-Almenara and Palacios-Rodríguez (2020). The 22 questions of the questionnaire refer to the six competency areas of DigCompedu: (A) professional engagement; (B) digital resources; (C) digital pedagogy; (D) assessment and feedback; (E) empowering students; and (F) facilitating students’ digital competence.

To measure the level of competence, a five-point Likerts scale was used, as well as the original DigCompEdu instrument (Ghomi & Redecker, 2018), with the different scale values referring to the following progressive levels (Cabero-Almenara & Palacios-Rodríguez, 2020):

-

Novice (A1): They have very little experience and contact with educational technology. They need continuous guidance to improve their level of teaching digital competence.

-

Explorer (A2): They have little contact with educational technology. They have not developed specific strategies to include ICT in the classroom. They need external guidance to improve their level of CDD.

-

Integrator (B1): They experiment with educational technology and reflect on its suitability for different educational contexts.

-

Expert (B2): They use a wide range of educational technologies confidently, confidently and creatively. They seek continuous improvement of his/her teaching practices.

-

Leader (C1): They are capable of adopting the different resources, strategies and knowledge available to his/her needs. They are a source of inspiration for other teachers.

4.2. Level of Digital Competence Acquired in Study Sample

The arithmetic mean and standard deviation coefficients of the results obtained by each of the studies provided were selected.

Table 5. Results by DTC dimension for each study. Mean and standard difference.

Title 1	1	2	3	4	5	6
Ferrando-Rodríguez et al. (2024)			3.96/6
Romero-Tena et al. (2024)	2.53 (0.668)	2.46 (0.693)	1.90 (0.627)	2.52 (0.585)	2.51 (0.833)	1.52 (0.465)
Andaluz-Delgado et al. (2023)	3.57 (2.04)	3.49 (1.10)	3.31 (1.10)	3.03 (1.11)	3.45 (1.03)	3.08 (1.15)
Ferrando-Rodríguez et al. (2023)			3.88 (0.88)
García-Delgado et al. (2023)	3.14 (1.087)	3.29 (1.186)	3.01 (1.330)	2.94 (1.318)	3.12 (1.525)	2.63 (1.231)
Martín-Párraga et al. (2023)	2.29 (0.850)	2.32 (0.799)	2.21 (1.002)	1.78 (0.888)	1.87 (1.145)	1.84 (0.967)
Rubio-Gragera et al. (2023)	2.66 (0.680)	2.45 (0.689)	2.43 (0.709)	2.32 (0.700)	2.52 (0.755)	1.87 (0.702)

1. Professional commitment; 2. digital content; 3. teaching and learning; 4. evaluation and feedback; 5. student empowerment; 6. development of students’ digital competence.

shows the synthesized results in each of the DC dimensions.

First of all, it should be noted that the studies by Ferrando-Rodríguez et al. (2024) and Ferrando-Rodríguez et al. (2023) only focused on the dimension of digital content creation.

In general, a medium–low level generalized to all the participating studies can be highlighted. The majority of dimensions tend to have a score of around 2. The highest results correspond to the sample obtained by Andaluz-Delgado et al. (2023), where all the dimensions of DTC score more than 3 points.

It is also observed that dimension 6 (the facilitation of students’ digital competence) is the lowest scoring dimension in most of the studies analyzed.

4.3. Predictors of the Level of Digital Competence of Teachers

Some of the studies analyzed included the study of possible independent variables in the sample of teachers that could influence the dimensions of DTC.

Table 6. Analysis of predictors studied in each article.

Studies	Significant Factors	No Significant Factors
Ferrando-Rodríguez et al. (2024)	Teachers who taught online presented a higher level of DTC than those who did not.	Professional experience. Teaching dedication (full or part-time).
Romero-Tena et al. (2024)	Teaching experience: teachers with less time in service rated themselves with higher DTC than those who have been teaching for a longer period of time.	No other variables were analyzed in the study.
Andaluz-Delgado et al. (2023)	No other variables were analyzed in the study.	Age and gender.
Ferrando-Rodríguez et al. (2023)	Previous ICT training: the more training in digital skills, the higher the self-perception. Experience: the more experience, the higher the self-perception.	Gender.
García-Delgado et al. (2023)	Educational stage: teachers of higher educational stage perceive themselves as more digitally competent teachers.	Age; teaching experience; type of school (public or private).
Rubio-Gragera et al. (2023)	As confinement progressed during COVID-19, teachers increased their confidence index towards the use of ICT.	Amount of time spent using ICT is not correlated with higher DTC. Teaching experience.

indicates the results extracted from each study.

As can be seen, the factors studied are recurrent in most of the studies. However, the disparity of conclusions obtained by the authors, depending on the study sample, can be seen. Therefore, no conclusive statements can be elucidated. As Table 6 shows, previous ICT training is a factor that positively affects the self-perception of teachers to have a higher level of self-perceived digital competence. Also interesting is the conclusion obtained in the study by Romero-Tena et al. (2024), which alludes to the feeling of teachers that the more experience they have in the education sector, the less digital self-perception they feel they have. However, this last report is not in line with the work of Ferrando-Rodríguez et al. (2023).

On the other hand, it is worth highlighting the results of the study by García-Delgado et al. (2023) in which he alludes to the fact that, depending on their educational stage, teachers perceived themselves as having a higher level of teaching digital competence.

It is worth highlighting the studies such as Ferrando-Rodríguez et al. (2024) and Rubio-Gragera et al. (2023) that focus their attention on the formative period during COVID-19. Both indicate that teachers who faced this difficult educational situation showed a higher self-perception of their digital skills than the rest.

5. Discussion

Digital competence is an imposing challenge for in-service teachers. The COVID-19 scenario reflected the training gap that still exists among teachers. Consequently, the need to promote DTC among in-service teachers continues to be a challenge to be faced by the educational community (Romero-Rodríguez et al., 2022). The following is a discussion of the results obtained in relation to similar studies.

RQ1.

What is the average score of in-service teachers according to the DigCompEdu framework?

The results provided by this systematic review indicate that the level of competence of the teachers analyzed is around average, being more prone to lower data. Dimensions such as the creation of digital content (dimension 3) or the promotion of training actions that increase the digital competence of students (dimension 6) are those, in general, in which teachers have presented worse results. It is worth reflecting on these results as it may lead to the idea that teachers can assimilate theoretical notions about technology but are not able to put them into practice, and what is more, they are not able to promote adequate digital competence in their students (Romero-Tena et al., 2024). The results of this work are in the direction of other published works, which show the educational community the lack of training of a large part of teaching staff, who, despite being able to observe the great potential that lies in ICT, do not perceive themselves as being able to make good use of it (Sánchez-Caballé et al., 2020).

As a consequence, this has repercussions on the development of students’ digital competence, which is still considered a distant objective in the educational panorama, and this is difficult to address in an archetypal educational model that presents numerous resistances to face new educational scenarios (Marimon-Martí et al., 2022).

To achieve this end, educational policies that increase digital training for teachers must be promoted, establishing a dual focus when proposing them. This encompasses the instrumental teaching of technology and, above all, the didactic purpose of technological resources to provide them to students (Pérez & Malagón, 2017). It should not be forgotten that this factor must be accompanied by material support, in which infrastructure and resources of different registers are provided to enable teachers to transform their classrooms in favor of digital education (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2022).

RQ2.

Are there differences in the self-perception of the DTC depending on the education-al stage at which the teacher teaches?

Regarding this question, the studies that make up this systematic review bring us closer to being able to affirm that teachers who teach in higher education consider that they have a higher level of DTC than those in other educational modalities. This may come close to statements such as those expressed in García-Delgado et al. (2023) regarding the possible correlative relationship between the level of educational stage and the self-perception of digital skills.

On the other hand, there are also studies that do reach the statistical conclusion that the educational stage is a significant variable that has an impact on the self-perception of the level of teachers’ digital competence, as is the case of the study by Palacios-Rodríguez et al. (2023) or Chondrogiannis and Castillo (2025). Therefore, we cannot state revealing conclusions about this aspect, as the results revolve around different conclusions.

RQ3.

Which instrument is the most commonly used to measure from this theoretical framework?

The results of this study show that the DigCompEdu Check-In scale is the most used instrument in the documents recruited for this review. From a pedagogical perspective, taking as a reference the criteria of the authors of the articles in this review, the DigCompEdu Check-In not only promotes self-reflection but also encourages continuous improvement in the didactic use of technology. By allowing teachers to evaluate how they integrate digital into different aspects of their practice—such as the personalization of learning, digital assessment or active student participation—this instrument reinforces critical awareness of the quality and impact of these practices (Palacios-Rodríguez et al., 2025). Its use at the institutional level also contributes to the design of more effective, evidence-based training strategies that promote the digital transformation of educational centers in a coherent manner that aligns with European standards (Aiastui, 2021).

However, it is worth noting the presence of other relevant instruments that stand out in the educational panorama, such as the SELIFE for teachers, designed by the European Commission, which offers a self-assessment aligned with the six areas of the DigCompEdu framework and has been validated in various European educational contexts, showing internal consistency and contextual relevance.

RQ4.

Are there other possible predictors of the level of self-perceived development of the DTC by each teacher?

With respect to the possible predictors of the greater development of digital competence, our study shows a divergence of results in the scientific literature. It might seem evident that age is, and above all, a predictor of digital competence over the years, as indicated by works such as Vega et al. (2021). However, we should not fall into the error into thinking that young teachers do not need training and guidance in this regard, since different studies affirm that they demand methodological guidance in the use of technologies to apply them effectively in the classroom (Sánchez-Prieto et al., 2021).

However, although other studies indicate that factors such as gender (Moreno-Guerrero et al., 2021) or professional experience (Ferrando-Rodríguez et al., 2024) may be predictors of DTC, the results of this review are not associated with these conclusions. In this sense, previous ICT training is a clear predictor (Garzón Artacho et al., 2020), according to several works, to which ours is added, for teachers to feel a greater perception around their digital competencies.

Finally, in connection to research question 2, the educational stage cannot be found to be a predictor of the level of self-perceived digital competence. Although studies carried out in recent years (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2020) may report higher levels of digital competence in teachers at higher educational stages, there is a disparity in the results in the scientific literature, as presented in works such as Rubach and Lazarides (2021). Therefore, the present study aims to add to the findings already obtained in this line of research, and it is necessary to continue delving in this direction in order to obtain more rigorous conclusions.

6. Conclusions

Digital teaching competence (DTC) has become a crucial axis in the continuing education of in-service teachers, especially in an educational context increasingly mediated by digital technologies. The integration of digital competencies not only responds to the current demands of the knowledge society, but also enhances pedagogical innovation, improves teaching–learning processes and promotes educational equity. The findings of this systematic review underscore the urgent need to strengthen DTC training, ensuring that teachers are prepared to face the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities posed by the contemporary digital educational environment.

Nevertheless, this study has certain limitations. Thus, we have encountered difficulties in selecting the articles in the sample, since we have relied on those that are in open access format. Similarly, there are still few documents that use the DigCompEdu framework among in-service teachers in Spain. Therefore, despite the fact that the results of the extracted documents analyze a large number of teaching samples, we cannot rigorously infer the results. For this reason, we advocate the replicability of this type of study in order to guarantee greater certainty in the conclusions drawn.

Despite the progress identified, this review evidences important gaps in research on the implementation of the DigCompEdu model in different educational contexts and formative levels. Future research should focus on developing longitudinal and comparative studies that assess the actual impact of the DTC on student learning outcomes. It is also essential to encourage research focused on effective teacher training strategies and the development of assessment tools specific to the DigCompEdu model.