Work package 1 is related to Creation of a Digital Competence Framework (DCF) of TLA aimed at regulating skills & competencies of teaching staff engaged in digital TLA to align with the global digital education trends.  

To enhance this objective is implemented different actions: 

• Literature review 

• Fundamental changes at university teaching DCF

• Test for a digital competence study in different actors. 

• Work package 1 results

• Spanish review and analysis of country's DCF

• Spanish reference for Armenian DCF

• Spanish suggestions for Armenian Policy paper

Final version of deliverable 1.1.: "D1.1: DCF Best Practice Report & Policy Paper for AM HE Sector." 

Digital Competence Framework Online Seminar, Access Presentations.

Final version of deliverable 1.2: draft 1  draft 2 draft 3

Nota metodológica: 

La premura para analizar el documento (6 días) condiciona el tipo de análisis que se puede desarrollar.

Una vez decididos loa parámetros más generales de DigComArm, dimensiones y subdimensiones, no se trata de cuestionarlos.

El equipo hace entonces un análisis comparando los indicadores propuestos en  https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Hh3nQ-Tpm-B5DEKW9JNLdGNcAWR5vqK/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=111053267517330537329&rtpof=true&sd=true  con los del Ministerio de Educación español https://intef.es/Noticias/marco-de-referencia-de-la-competencia-digital-docente/ y con los de https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://virtuva.uva.es/site/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/MarcoCompetenciaDigital.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiDp8-QsN-PAxWoVaQEHbeQA9IQFnoECGYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3zXn-v1VU3HsVdHphOsRQG 

Se han hecho dos equipos de dos académicos cada uno para leer los documentos, y luego comparar lo que han encontrado.

En DigCompArm se ha hecho una síntesis de subdimensiones que obliga a leer y releer las descripciones de las mismas para ver si para cada área competencial o dimensión se recogen las principales ideas del Marco español. Se ha compactado (pasan de 6 competencias de DigCompEdu a 5 en DigCompArm). No entienden el papel de los docentes en la alfabetización mediática del alumnado, que no vale solo con que el profe predique con TIC, sino que es necesario que el estudiantado esté involucrado y al día en la producción de conocimiento con TIC, entre otras cosas, y que necesitan que los profesores les orienten). 

En DigCompArm hay algunas adaptaciones de terminología pedagógica. Por ejemplo, en DigCompArm se ha resuelto el tema de promover la metacognición indicando promover "creativity and real-world problem-solving".

El documento del Marco español está pensado en un sistema que tiene dos niveles de trabajo, de aula y de centro. Eso no se va a encontrar en DigCompArm, donde el profesor trabaja solo (incluso para innovar) en todos los niveles (alguna vez parece que puede ser capaz de involucrar a un equipo, pero no siempre se sugiere). Además, el Marco español apuesta por la progresiva implicación del docente en el trabajo del centro, y tampoco se va a encontrar en DigCompArm.

Los indicadores de DigCompArm son más bien ejemplos que incluyen herramientas. En el Marco español los indicadores se refieren a las herramientas de forma genérica. Y ni siquiera en los ejemplos aparecen empresas, como en DigCompArm. 

Se trata de ver si la definición de cada subdimensión del DigCompArm (el "competence descriptor" de cada nivel, Fundational, Intermediate, Advanced) está completa en relación al Marco español, y valorar si los "achivement indicators" responden a la definición. También se valoran las herramientas sugeridas. 

Salvo alguna indicación, el trabajo no encuentra discrepancias con el espíritu de DigCompEdu en DigCompArm.

To built a DCF policy paper, it was analysed national DCFs about the background, the policies they follow, the obligation to accredit it (voluntary, mandatory), the repercussions it has on the training that teachers will receive and on the promotion of teachers who accredit it.

Analysis: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pK4ednLpNMd9z1YG-GEvhN0OrIPzXhaWobHgy-Ar-J0/edit?usp=sharing 

National DCFs: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15O8UknCBvIrhDgDWg9FVJClTyQTCONTc 

We have as a basis the three validated European questionnaires for digital competence of different actors:

- For a global analysis of the administration of educational institutions, the Selfie based on DigCompOrg: https://education.ec.europa.eu/es/selfie

The reference framework of the self-reflection questionnaire of the educational community: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/european-framework-digitally-competent-educational-organisations-digcomporg/digcomporg-framework_en 

- For the levels of digital competence of teachers as trainers of the CD of students, the SelfieForTeachers based on DigCompEdu: https://education.ec.europa.eu/selfie-for-teachers 

The reference framework of the self-reflection questionnaire of teachers: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/digcompedu_en 

European Commission (2023). SELFIE for teachers: toolkit Using SELFIEforTEACHERS: supporting teachers in building their digital competence, Publications Office of the European Union. English:https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/626409 

- For the digital competence levels of students, the Digital Skills Assessment Tool questionnaire based on DigComp: https://europa.eu/europass/digitalskills/screen/questionnaire/generic  or the simplified Spanish version,  with only 21 questions based on the same digital competences but not focused on employment. Generation D: self-diagnosis questionnaire of digital competences of citizens (Spanish Government, 2023).  https://generaciond.gob.es/cuestionario-autodiagnostico 

The reference framework of the citizen self-assessment questionnaire: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/scientific-activities-z/education-and-training/digital-transformation-education/digital-competence-framework-citizens-digcomp/digcomp-framework_en 

Some of these online tools have automatic translation into Armenian.

There is an online questionnaire from the European Commission that is for professionals. Take this test to find out what is your Europass (adult/professional) digital profile (2022). https://europa.eu/europass/digitalskills/screen/home?referrer=epass&route=%2Fes&lang=es 

Analysis of DCF for university (u) DigCompEdu and OpenEdu (experimental) (2022), and for teacher in the levels before university (bu) Common Digital Competence Framework for Teacher (2017/2022). It is explained Competency Domains, Proficiency Levels, Assessment & Certification, Alignment with International Standards, Implementation Strategies, Best Practices, Challenges & Barriers, Recommendations for Improvement.

1. The national DCF for HE is based on DigCompEdu as the most appropriate framework for higher education. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsEkjdTtPGY  (about 50 min) 

2. Adaptation considerations:

•    national specificities (socio-cultural and educational context, technological advancement, system and teacher preparedness, etc.)

•    technological advancements since 2017 when DigCompEdu was developed (generative AI, Open Educational Resources, etc.)

•    available human, time, and financial resources, as well as other constraints faced by the development team

3. The DCF is not an isolated document but part of a comprehensive system that includes training and certification of teachers (WP.2), criteria/KPIs, and guiding examples of digital competence for different mastery/progress levels.

4. A 3-level assessment scale with two sublevels each, consistent with DigCompEdu and other established systems (such as language proficiency assessment scales).

From the Spanish project with which Linda Castañeda did the framework, it organized a process of “adaptation” of the framework that brought the framework closer to the universities and that was positive (in Spanish Document you have not only the framework, but the “how it was done”), and another thing that was VERY positive, was the generation of examples. In the Spanish project, it has made a series of catalogs of professional examples for the different areas of knowledge that include how professors in each area implement each of the competence indicators in their daily work. Each catalog is tailored to one of the five main branches of knowledge, providing specific and relevant examples that illustrate how digital competence can be demonstrated and developed in different educational contexts (in Spanish too):

• Social and Legal Sciences

• Arts and Humanities

• Health Sciences

• Physical and Experimental Sciences

• Engineering and Architecture

In addition, as part of another project, it has produced a “course”, a material in open format, to train people who make decisions related to digital transformation based on teaching, is a practical material based on DigCompEdu, which has lots of extra resources and is open for use with a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license ... 

From this course, from the original English version, a micro-credential will be offered by the Forum of Teaching and Learning of Ireland, which will probably open in September and will grant a certification from the University of Galway or the Irish Government to those who take it.

In addition, in this same project, it has a catalog of activities to inspire digital transformation processes in universities. 

Finally, it might find useful an article about factors that should be worked in the university digital transformation, it is a framework that can be useful, precisely because it does not raise the issue as a “you must have this or that”, but as a “you must work this or that”.  

Some suggestions to the Policy paper:

In the introductory section, p. 2, paragraph 5, I suggest adding to the primary goal that the mastery of digital competences in teaching should have not only an individual perspective but also an institutional, departmental, faculty and university perspective.

 In section 2, p. 3, paragraph 1, I suggest adding to ‘Teaching staff and students demonstrate moderate utilisation of digital tools and technologies for instruction and assessment purposes’ that this statement is based on a careful context analysis carried out by eCAMPUS.

At p. 3, para. 11, it states that: "Human expertise limitations: Constrained availability of specialised digital competence framework experts." I think it does not help the credibility of the document to say this. Various methods have been used to triangulate the information obtained. I propose that this statement be deleted as it detracts from the work of the team working on eCAMPUS.

I think it is good to simplify DigCompEdu to adapt it to the Armenian reality. However, by incorporating dimensions of area 6 into the other areas, in the dimensions added in the table in the Annex, the idea of the introduction of this area changes: "the ability to facilitate learners' digital competence is an integral part of educators' digital competence. Because of this, this ability merits a dedicated area". The sense of the area is that the teacher introduces methodologies where students have the opportunity to do activities with technological skills. That has been lost in the policy paper. For example, it is not the same to say: Use digital technologies to foster learning in real-world contexts and engage learners in problem-solving (from Area 6), as it is to say: Incorporate activities in which learners solve real-world activities.... It is not technology-enabled learning situations, it is teaching with technology, which is something different. It was an important debate when it was thought to extend DigComp to DigCompEdu to add area 6, along with that of including professional development area 1. I suggest that area 6 be reconsidered and brought back in the sense that it was included in DigCompEdu. 

On page 8, paragraph 2, when talking about certification, it could be added: In this process it will be important to take into account the possibility of the participation of training meanings with an advanced mastery of technology. It will also be relevant to articulate processes of collective improvement in technology at department, faculty and university levels.

There are some mistakes: eCAPMPUS (p. 3, para. 10), applictaion (p. 5, para. 4).