The Influence of Digital Tools and Social Networks on the Digital Competence of University Students during COVID-19 Pandemic

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article The Influence of Digital Tools and Social Networks on the Digital Competence of University Students during COVID-19 Pandemic Javier Rodríguez-Moreno 1, Ana María Ortiz-Colón1,* , Eulogio Cordón-Pozo 2and Miriam Agreda-Montoro 1   Citation: Rodríguez-Moreno, J.; Ortiz-Colón, A.M.; Cordón-Pozo, E.; Agreda-Montoro, M. The Influence of Digital Tools and Social Networks on the Digital Competence of University Students during COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2835. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph18062835 Academic Editor: Juan Leiva Received: 9 February 2021 Accepted: 7 March 2021 Published: 10 March 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1Department of Pedagogy, Faculty of Humanities and Education Sciences, Campus Las Lagunillas, University of Jaen, 23071 Jaén, Spain; [email protected] (J.R.-M.); magr[email protected] (M.A.-M.) 2Department of Business Organization II, Faculty of Economics and Business, Campus La Cartuja, University of Granada, 18010 Granada, Spain; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The pandemic caused by COVID-19 has generated a transformation in students’ competences and university education, especially in the use of digital tools. This study aims to analyze the use of digital tools and social networks of university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. For the collection of information, a validated Likert questionnaire (10-point scale) was adopted. The instrument consisted of a total of 66 items comprising a total of seven dimensions. The sample contained 581 students pursuing degrees in Childhood Education and Primary Education. The analysis of the available information was carried out in two different stages. First, we started by performing an exploratory factorial analysis (EFA) to determine the underlying structure of the Digital Competence of Higher Education Students (DCHES) scale factor. In the second phase, we used SEM (structural equation modeling), a statistical approach to test the relationships between observed and latent variables. More specifically, we estimated a multiple indicators multiple causes (MIMIC) model. The results showed the importance of two of the considered covariates in explaining the variability of the different dimensions of the scale analyzed (DCHES) considering the use of social networks and digital tools of university students. In this sense, both the degree to which virtual tools are used to develop teamwork and the degree of use of YouTube when communicating most fully explained the level of digital skills among the university students studied. Keywords: higher education; COVID-19; digital tools; social networks 1. Introduction The pandemic caused by COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) has had a major impact in all contexts, forcing university education to undergo great changes in a very short period of time, both for teachers and for students, in order to adapt itself to the new situation using the digital tools at its disposal. In this context, it is necessary to consider the competences that affect students, such as effective, emotional, and social competences, as students have been forced to work in unknown contexts featuring the exclusive use of digital platforms. Cabero [ 1 , 2 ] argues that the wellbeing of students includes five areas: material, social, physical, psychological, and cognitive wellbeing, although educational sociologists consider economic and social wellbeing to be an influencing factor for the rest. In addition, Ng [ 3 ] considers digital literacy as “multiple literacies related to the use of digital technologies”, indicating that these technologies “are the subgroup of electronic technologies that include hardware and software used by people with educational, social or leisure purposes at school or at home”. This same approach establishes the concept of literacy as the result of “the intersection of three dimensions: the technical dimension, the cognitive dimension and the social–emotional dimension of digital literacy” (p. 1067). In other words, we must ensure that the new educational programs of UNESCO for the coming years are included in the United Nations resolution and Agenda 2030 for sustainable development and that such programs aim to transform our world through Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 2835. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062835 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 2835 2 of 18 improved citizenship [ 4 ]. Here, citizenship must be understood from a global point of view as a fundamental category in the conceptual framework of the internationalization of higher education. This approach is based on the fact that one of education’s purposes is to train people with the criteria and capacities to function in an increasingly multicultural and interdependent society, requiring citizens with cognitive, social, and emotional competences that will help them to value, understand, and respect current social needs; work in multicultural teams; and be able to actively and responsibly participate in the solutions to global problems [5]. Several studies have been conducted on the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) among young people, as well as on the qualifications of young people in technology integration [ 6 – 11 ] at both the personal and academic level. The development of digital competence must ultimately be perceived as lifelong learning [12]. Several authors [ 13 , 14 ] claim that it should not be assumed that every young person has digital competence because such individuals need training in this area. Moreover, young people use limited digital tools when they start their degree studies. For Gutiérrez and Tyner, “What would be more worrying is that compulsory schooling would not fulfill its basic function of providing literacy, understood as a preparation for life in the digital society” [15]. On the other hand, ICTs have advanced in the field of communication, facilitating collaborative work and multiplying the possibilities for students and teachers to be connected via the use of virtual tools that encourage collaborative learning through blogs, websites, electronic journals, social networks, academic search engines, and platforms like MOOCs (massive online open courses). These tools will facilitate the acquisition of positive attitudes in the construction of knowledge and group cohesion, while boosting the acquisition and retention of knowledge, improving problem-solving abilities, the expression of ideas, motivation, and personal satisfaction [ 16 ], thereby generating critical thinking. With this technology, it will become easier to know and compare concepts [ 17 , 18 ] and thus move forward in knowledge generation, such as in new tutoring approaches [19]. Focusing on the degrees that are the object of our study, different universities have carried out studies to identify the technological competences among students in teaching degree studies, such as at the International University of Rioja, International University of Valencia, Technological University of Chile, University of Seville, University of Córdoba, University of País Vasco, the and National Central University of Taiwan, among others. The results show that automated office software, such as word processors and slideshow presentation programs are the programs known best by students [ 20 ]. Regarding of the use of blogs, wikis, or social bookmarks, most students do not know how to use the tools related to Web 2.0 [ 20 , 21 ]. That is, we need to go deeper into the development of ICTs and see how they generate creativity and innovation, as well as determining their possibilities when studying and carrying out academic work [ 22 – 24 ], where research, information management, and critical and creative thinking are promoted to achieve the development of digital citizenship [25,26]. Another matter of interest is the myth of “digital natives” and “digital immigrants”. Some studies have shown that digital natives—i.e., the university students—do not have strong skills in the technological tools necessary to interact in new technological environments and that digital immigrants are not technologically qualified [ 20 , 27 ] and should instead be considered digital students [ 28 , 29 ] based on the speed with which they handle some technologies from an instrumental point of view, confusing access to information with the construction of knowledge. In addition, the higher education institute of UNESCO, in their “COVID-19 and Higher Education: the immediate effects the day after” report [ 30 ], in relation to the problems of students in virtual training, expressed concern about students’ communication with their peers and teachers and their connectivity with others, with the concern being lower regarding social isolation and general anxiety, but indicating low satisfaction among students with the virtual model and teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 2835 3 of 18 The gendered differences in the use of ICTs are currently a threat of social significance [ 31 ] that must be fought by all sectors of society, including the educational field. Several studies [ 32 – 34 ] highlighted that female students are perceived as less competent in the use of ICTs than their male counterparts. This perception might have justification in the social imaginaries that are built around women in the technological field and the competences associated with the use of these tools, which have been traditionally seen as a male domain [35]. Moreover, other investigations [ 36 – 38 ] underlined some inequalities in favor of men regarding the use and knowledge of different kinds of technology, as well as a more positive attitude towards their use [39,40]. However, what are classrooms currently demanding, and how can we improve relevant strategies and engage in pedagogical innovation [ 4 ]? The birth of social networks (Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, YouTube, etc.) is introducing new types of profiles into educational practice and changing the relationships between teachers and students. It is possible to adapt social media services as appropriate tools in the teaching and learning process, especially to improve the interactions between teachers and students [ 41 , 42 ]. However, at present, in higher education, social networks are rarely used to improve student participation in collaborative learning [43,44]. Some of the perceptions that teachers have regarding social networks relate to the feeling of unsuitability of these technologies in teaching practice [ 45 ], the lack of control by teachers [ 46 ], and concern over a lack of privacy [ 47 , 48 ]. Other discourses on social networks revolve around their contribution to greater disconnection [ 49 , 50 ] or a lack of experience in their use at the institutional and academic level [ 47 ]. On the other hand, some investigations are already contributing to changing these perceptions and are focusing on the benefits of social networks and collaboration in learning and communication with students [51,52], as well as the benefits of the online work of students [53]. Social networks are a great tool to promote learning in the community, encourage the participation of students, and generate knowledge discussions [ 54 – 56 ]. Other investigations, such as those conducted by Al-Ufi and Fulton in [ 57 ] and Hamid, Waycott, Kurnia and Chang [ 42 ], have argued for the extensive benefits of social networks in higher education, as well as the possibilities for connectivity, conversation, and teamwork with such devices. All of these tools improve the satisfaction, confidence, and the participation of students [ 42 , 58 ]; motivate students [ 59 ]; improve learning and teacher involvement [ 60 ]; offer self-learning material [ 41 ]; and provide emotional and personal support [ 61 ]. Moreover, social networks in higher education are very valuable for improving academic performance through collaborative learning [ 43 ], where students and teachers use social networks that are interesting to them [42]. Regarding the advantages of social networks in the classroom, Buxarrais [ 62 ] proposes their use, as such tools encourage the development of attitudes and skills related to working collaboratively and more independently when searching and selecting materials. Because social networks are a part of students’ lives, the use of such tools is a regular part of each student’s day, making it easy for students to make the most of these tools; moreover, students do not feel like they are addicted to social media [ 63 ]. In addition, we found a number of concerns about the use of social networks for educational purposes, particularly as they are used as learning tools [ 47 ]. Other problems related to this technology are connected to the effects of social networks on the time dedicated to study, a loss of control [ 47 ], or the use of social networks to diffuse unrelated information [ 64 ]; therefore, institutions must propose a new pedagogical approach and define new strategies, methodologies, and tools to meet this social demand [47]. Specifically, there is an improvement in communicative processes when using YouTube to communicate [ 65 ]. Furthermore, the use of YouTube can help increase user communication and participation [ 66 – 68 ]. Moreover, teaching the use of YouTube and its practices in classrooms will contribute to the democratization of knowledge and help in the selection Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 2835 4 of 18 and reception of self-made contents. Moreover, students who are capable of creating their own audiovisual content obtain better academic results than those who are not [69]. Therefore, the acquisition of digital competence by the student body should not only be considered for adapting to the new social and labor demands of the 21st century. During the confinement caused by COVID-19, the educational community has had to deal with profound changes in a very short period of time and adapt to online teaching. This has led to high levels of stress among students, who did not know how their learning would develop in virtual environments, in addition to the emotions derived from a lack of social contact and confinement. In this way, the acquisition of good technological skills could help alleviate the negative effects derived from concern about how the teaching–learning process will be developed in online contexts. Thus, the objective of this study is to analyze the influence of the use of digital tools and social networks of university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2. Methods To respond to the needs of our study, we chose to design non-experimental research, since the main objective of the investigation was to “analyze the impact of digital tools and social media on the development of digital competence of university students during COVID19 pandemic” [ 70 ]. To this end, we focused on the three key elements of any research process: the data collection instrument, the participants and application context, and the procedure to be used. 2.1. Population and Sample The sample selected included a total of 581 university students enrolled in Childhood Education, Primary Education, and Social Education degrees during the 2019/2020 academic year at the University of Jaen. In total, 81.4% (472) of the subjects were women, and 18.6% (108) were men. The mean age was about 21 years old, with 82.5% of the sample located in the age interval between 18 and 23 years old. Regarding the degree the students were enrolled in, 65.1% of the participants were studying a Childhood Education degree, 18.1% a Primary Education Teaching degree, and the remaining 16.8% a Social Education degree. Regarding the subjects in which they were enrolled, 58.5% were enrolled in School Center Organization in Infant Education; 14.2% in Primary Education Organization; 12.3% in the Design, Development, and Evaluation of Social Education Programs; 10.2% in Educational Multimedia in Infant and Primary Education; and 4.7% in Diagnosis and Evaluation in Social Education. Lastly, the vast majority of subjects (99.5%) had a computer or a tablet, and 98.4% had an Internet connection at home and mainly connected from home (69%). Likewise, the majority, 87.7%, were trained in the use of ICTs primarily offered by the University (82.5%). In total, 51.4% of the surveyed students spent between 4 and 9 h a week dedicated to the use of ICTs related to their studies. The type of sampling used was non-probabilistic, casual, and accidental sampling, where the investigator directly and intentionally selects the sample, mainly because the sample is easily accessible and representative of the population [71]. 2.2. Data Collection Procedure and Instrument In this work, we used a descriptive quantitative methodology through a survey. We designed an ad hoc questionnaire as an information collection instrument, which is one of the most commonly used techniques in investigations in the field of digital competence [ 72 ]. This survey used a Likert-type scale where subjects had to indicate, on a 1–10 scale, their digital competence degree, where a value of 1 means that the individual feels completely unable to perform the task, and 10 means that the individual has mastered it completely. The instrument was adapted from Gutiérrez, Cabero, and Estrada [ 1 ]. The structure of the questionnaire is as follows: •Dimension 1. Technological literacy: 13 items. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 2835 5 of 18 •Dimension 2. Search and information processing: 6 items. •Dimension 3. Critical thinking, problem solving and decision making: 4 items. •Dimension 4. Communication and collaboration: 9 items. •Dimension 5. Digital citizenship: 6 items. •Dimension 6. Innovation and creativity: 6 items. For the participants to complete the questionnaire, the students were sent a link to the instrument to fill in online, as well as the procedural clarifications, ensuring at all times the confidentiality and anonymity of the data collected. The instrument ultimately generated a record of the responses prepared for their statistical interpretation and analysis. This instrument was developed through the Google forms tool, which allows us to send it en masse and receive the data online. 2.3. Data Analysis Analysis of the available information was carried out through two different stages. First, we carried out an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the subjacent factorial structure of the Digital Competence in Higher Education Students scale (DCHES). The required analyses were carried out using the STATA statistical package, version 15 [73–75] . Following Costello and Osborne [ 76 ], as the method for extracting the factors, we selected a true method of factor analysis, discarding the principal component analysis approach that is commonly used by default in various statistical packages. To choose among the alternative methods available (unweighted least squares, generalized least squares, maximum likelihood, principal axis factoring, alpha factoring, and image factoring), we followed the recommendations of Frabigar [ 77 ] and examined whether it is possible to assume the hypothesis of multivariate normality required to use the maximum likelihood extraction method. This is important because this procedure can produce misleading results when assumptions of multivariate normality are severely violated. In the second phase, we used SEM (structural equation modeling), a statistical approach, to test the relationships among observed and latent variables [ 78 ]. More concretely, we estimated a multiple indicators multiple causes (MIMIC) model (latent variable model with multiple indicators) using the Mplus 8.4 program [ 79 ]. Within the framework of structural equation modeling (SEM), a MIMIC (multiple indicators multiple causes) model features one or more latent variables that are predicted by observed variables or covariates [80]. Thus, a MIMIC factor includes both cause indicators and effect indicators [81]. 2.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Results We began our analysis determining if the data was adequate to be analyzed using an EFA approach. For this purpose, two measures for the adequacy of the sample are usually used: the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO), which indicates the proportion of variance in variables that might be caused by underlying factors, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which tests the hypothesis that a correlation matrix is an identity matrix [ 82 ]. We used the factortest command available in STATA to calculate these measures [ 83 ]. The results of both demonstrated that our data met the factor analysis criteria: the KMO measure was 0.959, and Bartlett’s test was statically significant, with χ2(946) = 11,714.08 and p< 0.001. To determine whether the data followed a normal multivariate distribution, we used the mvtest command available in STATA to calculate the Doornik–Hansen test of multivariate normality [ 84 ]. The obtained results indicated that the data could not be assumed to be distributed according to a multivariate normal, so the ML method was discarded to extract the factors ( χ2(88) = 1085.34; p= 0.000). Thus, we choose to use principal axis factoring as the method of extraction [ 76 , 77 ]. Moreover, because the factors could be correlated from a theoretical point of view, as a rotation method, we chose Oblimin with Kaiser normalization. On the other hand, one of the most important decisions in factor analysis is how many factors to retain. Although a commonly utilized criterion is retaining factors whose Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 2835 6 of 18 eigenvalues are greater than unity [ 84 , 85 ], there are various problems associated with this approach, and thus its application is not recommended [ 86 , 87 ]. In accordance with the recommendations of Velicer [ 88 ], we used Horn’s parallel analysis to determine the number of factors to retain. The required analyses were carried out in the statistical package STATA using the fapara command [ 89 ]. The results obtained after the analysis indicated the desirability of retaining seven factors. In Figure 1, the dashed line intersects the solid line for the first time at the point that represents the extracted seventh factor. Figure 1. Result of Horn’s parallel analysis using the fapara command. Thus, our solution retained seven factors, which explained 58.9% of the variance. Table 1shows information for interpreting the factors extracted. For oblique rotations, where the factors are allowed to correlate, we obtained a solution with various matrices. The pattern matrix that holds the loadings essentially presents a regression equation where the standardized observed variable is expressed as a function of the factors (loadings are regression coefficients). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 2835 7 of 18 Table 1. Results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA): factor loading using principal axis factoring with direct Oblimin rotation (pattern matrix coefficients). Factors and Items Reliability Indicators F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 DIM1. Search, processing, resolution, and communication of information ω= 0.932 CI: [0.922, 0.943] α= 0.932 CI: [0.922, 0.942] I am able to locate information through different sources and databases available on the Internet (DCHES14). 0.414 I can identify relevant information by evaluating different sources and their provenance (DCHES15). 0.618 I am able to organize, analyze and ethically use information from a variety of sources and media (DCHES16). 0.582 I synthesize selected information appropriately for the construction and assimilation of new content, using tables, graphs or diagrams. (DCHES17). 0.541 I plan information searches for problem solving (DCHES19). 0.601 I am able to identify and define problems and/or research questions using ICT (DCHES20). 0.530 I use digital resources and tools to explore current world issues and solve real problems, addressing personal, social, professional needs . . . (DCHES21). 0.519 I can analyze the capabilities and limitations of ICT resources (DCHES22). 0.524 I share information of interest with my peers using a variety of digital environments and media (DCHES24). 0.443 I effectively communicate information and ideas to multiple audiences, using a variety of media and formats (DCHES25). 0.483 I am able to develop cultural understanding and global awareness through communication with other students and professionals from other cultures (DCHES26). 0.501 DIM2. Technological literacy ω= 0.858 CI: [0.836, 0.881] α= 0.855 CI: [0.832, 0.878] I am proficient in different office tools for information processing, such as word processors, spreadsheets, databases . . . (DCHES4). 0.464 I investigate and solve problems in systems and applications (configure e-mail, configure antivirus, defragment the hard disk, etc.) (DCHES5). 0.525 I am able to use different image, audio or digital video processing tools (DCHES6). 0.664 I can design web pages using software, including text, images, audio, links, etc. (DCHES9). 0.465 I know how to use collaborative work software using online tools such as Groupware (Google Apps, BSCW, OpenGroupWare . . . ) (DCHES11). 0.548 DIM3. ICT use ω= 0.758 CI: [0.719, 0.789] α= 0.748 CI: [0.708, 0.787] I am able to use different types of operating systems installed on a computer (Microsoft Windows, Linux, Mac . . . ) and on mobile devices (iOS, Android, BlackBerry OS . . . ) (DCHES1) 0.631 I am able to use different mobile devices (Smartphone, Tablet, PDAs . . . ) (DCHES2). 0.767 I surf the Internet with different browsers (Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Safari, Opera . . . ) (DCHES3). 0.416 I feel competent to use the virtual management (virtual secretary, library services, etc.) of my university (DCHES13). 0.509 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 2835 8 of 18 Table 1. Cont. Factors and Items Reliability Indicators F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 DIM4. Communication and collaboration ω= 0.768 CI: [0.729, 0.806] α= 0.772 CI: [0.736, 0.809] I can communicate with other people using synchronous communication tools via the web (chat, instant messaging services, Skype . . . ) (DCHES7). 0.405 I am able to communicate with others using asynchronous web-based communication tools (forums, social networks, mailing lists) (DCHEES8). 0.425 I am able to coordinate group activities using online tools and media (DCHES28). 0.359 I interact with other colleagues and users using social networks (Facebook, Ning, Twitter . . . ) and communication channels (Blog, YouTube channel . . . ) based on ICT (DCHES29). 0.412 DIM5. Digital citizenship ω= 0.857 CI: [0.832, 0.882] α= 0.856 CI: [0.831, 0.881] I am ethically committed to the use of digital information and ICT, including respect for copyright, intellectual property and proper referencing of sources (DCHES33). 0.585 I promote and practice safe, legal and responsible use of information and ICT (DCHES34). 0.632 I demonstrate personal responsibility for lifelong learning using ICTs (DCHES35). 0.654 DIM6. Digital performance ω= 0.873 CI: [0.854, 0.893] α= 0.869 CI: [0.849, 0.889] I know how to use collaborative work software using online tools such as Groupware (Google Apps, BSCW, OpenGroupWare . . . ) (DCHES10). 0.412 I use graphic organizers and software for making concept and mind maps (CmapTool, Mindomo, etc.), diagrams or schemes, to present the relationships between ideas and concepts. (DCHES18). 0.629 I configure and troubleshoot hardware, software and networking systems to optimize their use for learning and productivity (DCHES23). 0.408 I can use software (SlideShare, Google Docs, etc.) and technological tools to manage and communicate information with colleagues and other online users (DCHES27) 0.352 I am able to manage professional networks (Linkedin, etc.) (DCHES30). 0.696 I am able to design, create or modify a Wiki (Wikispaces, Nirewiki, etc.) (DCHES31). 0.669 I can use social bookmarking to locate, store and tag Internet resources (DCHES32). 0.511 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 2835 9 of 18 Table 1. Cont. Factors and Items Reliability Indicators F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 DIM7. Leadership, innovation and creativity ω= 0.924 CI: [0.913, 0.936] α= 0.924 CI: [0.913, 0.935] I consider myself competent to make constructive criticisms, judging and making contributions to the ICT work developed by my colleagues (DCHES36). 0.422 I exercise leadership for digital citizenship within my group (DCHES37). 0.506 I exhibit a positive attitude towards the use of ICTs to support collaboration, learning and productivity (DCHES38). 0.532 I have the ability to come up with original, novel and useful ideas using ICT (DCHES39). 0.688 I am able to create original work using traditional and emerging ICT resources (DCHES40). 0.654 I identify trends by anticipating the potential uses that ICT can lend me (DCHES41). 0.680 I use models and simulations to explore complex systems and issues using ICTs (DCHES42). 0.548 I develop materials where I use ICT in a creative way, supporting the construction of my knowledge (DCHES43). 0.529 I am able to adapt to new situations and technological environments (DCHES44). 0.388 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 2835 16 of 18 22. Cabero, J.; Del Prete, A.; Arancibia, M.L. Percepciones de estudiantes universitarios chilenos sobre uso de redes sociales y trabajo colaborativo RIED. Rev. Iberoam. De Educ. A Distancia 2019,22, 35–55. [CrossRef] 23. Cabero, J.; Díaz, V.M. Posibilidades educativas de las redes sociales y el trabajo en grupo: Percepciones de los alumnos universitarios. Comun. Rev. Científica Iberoam. De Comun. Y Educ. 2014,42, 165–172. 24. Hung, S.H.; Cheng, M.J. Are you ready for Knowledge Sharing? An Empirical Study of Virtual Communities. Comput. Educ. 2013,62, 8–17. [CrossRef] 25. Brown, M. Exploring the Underbelly of Digital Literacies. OEB Insight. 2017. Available online: https://oeb-insights.com/ exploring-theunderbelly-of-digital-literacies/ (accessed on 13 December 2020). 26. Martínez, K.P.; Ramírez, A. Ciudadanía digital para practicar un gobierno abierto: Análisis del uso de las Tecnologías de la Información y de la Comunicación en un ambiente universitario. Rev. Espec. En Investig. Jurídica 2018,2, 93–114. [CrossRef] 27. Casati, R. Elogio del Papel. Contra el Colonialismo Digital; Ariel: Barcelona, Spain, 2015. 28. Gallardo, E. Hablemos de estudiantes digitales y no de nativos digitales. UT. Rev. De Ciéncies De l’Educ. 2012, 7–21. [CrossRef] 29. IESALC. Covid-19 Y Educación Superior: De Los Efectos Inmediatos al Día Después. Instituto Internacional de Educación Superior de la UNESCO para América Latina y el Caribe. 2020. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/news/covid-19-yeducacion-superior-impacto-y-recomendaciones-resumen-del-seminario-web-regional (accessed on 20 December 2020). 30. Vázquez-Cano, E.; Gómez-Galán, J.; Infante-Moro, A.; López-Meneses, E. Incidence of a non-sustainability use of technology on students’ reading performance in Pisa. Sustainability 2020,12, 749. [CrossRef] 31. Barragán, R.; Ruíz, E. Brecha de género e inclusión digital. El potencial de las redes sociales en educación. Profr. Rev. De Currículum Y Form. Del Profr. 2016,17, 309–323. 32. Barrantes, G.; Casas, L.; Luengo, R. Competencias Tecnológicas de los profesores de Infantil y Primaria de Extremadura en función del género. Rev. Iberoam. De Inf. Educ. 2014 ,19, 38–48. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo? codigo=4794548 (accessed on 20 December 2020). 33. Sáinz, M. El uso de las TIC en el ámbito educativo con perspectiva de género. Actitudes del profesorado y del alumnado. TELOS (Cuadernos de Comunicación e Innovación) 2013 ,I, 1–8. Available online: https://telos.fundaciontelefonica.com/url-direct/pdfgenerator?tipoContenido=articuloTelos&idContenido=2013062110010002&idioma=es (accessed on 21 December 2020). 34. Suárez Rodríguez, J.M.; Almerich, G.; Gargallo López, B.; Aliaga, F. Las Competencias del profesorado en TIC: Estructura Básica. Educ. XX1 2013,16, 39–62. [CrossRef] 35. Gil-Juárez, A.; Feliú, J.; Vitores, A. Género y TIC: En torno a la brecha digital de género. Athenea Digit. 2012 ,12, 3–9. Available online: http://atheneadigital.net/article/viewFile/v12-n3-gil-feliu-vitores/1137-pdf-es (accessed on 22 December 2020). [CrossRef] 36. Cruz, I. Percepciones en el uso de las redes sociales y su aplicación en la enseñanza de las matemáticas. Pixel-Bit. Rev. De Medios Y Educ. 2016,48, 165–186. [CrossRef] 37. Hohlfeld, T.N.; Ritzhaupt, A.D.; Barron, A.E. Are Gender Differences in Perceived and Demonstrated Technology Literacy Significant? It Depends on the Model. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2013,61, 639–663. [CrossRef] 38. Espinar, E.; González, M.J. Jóvenes en las redes sociales virtuales: Un análisis exploratorio de las diferencias de género. Fem. S 2009,14, 87–105. [CrossRef] 39. Romero, R. Género en el uso del e-learning en las universidades andaluzas. Profesorado. Rev. De Currículum Y Form. Del Profr. 2011,15, 121-13. 40. Fernández, F.J.; Fernández, M.J.; Rodríguez, J.M. El proceso de integración y uso pedagógico de las TIC en los centros educativos madrileños. Educ. XX1 2018,21, 395–416. [CrossRef] 41. Dyson, B.; Vickers, K.; Turtle, J.; Cowan, S. Evaluating the use of Facebook to increase student engagement and understanding in lecture-based classes. High. Educ. 2015,69, 303–313. [CrossRef] 42. Hamid, S.; Waycott, J.; Kurnia, S.; Chang, S. Understanding students’ perceptions of the benefits of online social networking use for teaching and learning. Internet High. Educ. 2015,26, 1–9. [CrossRef] 43. Al-Rahmi, W.; Othman, M.; Yusof, L.; Musa, M. Using social media as a tool for improving academic performance through collaborative learning in Malaysian higher education. Rev. Eur. Stud. 2015,7, 265–273. [CrossRef] 44. Michikyan, M.; Subrahmanyam, K.; Dennis, J. Facebook use and academic performance among college students: A mixedmethods study with a multiethnic sample. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015,45, 265–272. [CrossRef] 45. Herrington, J.; Parker, J. Emerging technologies as cognitive tools for authentic learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2013 ,44, 607–615. [CrossRef] 46. Ng’ambi, D. Effective and ineffective uses of emerging technologies: Towards a transformative pedagogical model. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2013,44, 652–661. [CrossRef] 47. Au, M.; Lam, J.; Chan, R. Social media education: Barriers and critical issues. In Technology in Education. Transforming Educational Practices with Technology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. 48. Dahlstrom, E. ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. In Research Report; EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research: Louisville, CO, USA, 2012. 49. Selwyn, N. An investigation of differences in undergraduates’ academic use of the internet. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2008 ,9, 11–22. [CrossRef] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 2835 17 of 18 50. Selwyn, N.; Grant, L. Researching the realities of social software use an introduction. Learn. Media Technol. 2009 ,34, 79–86. [CrossRef] 51. McCarthy, J. International design collaboration and mentoring for tertiary students through Facebook. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2012,28, 755–775. [CrossRef] 52. Scott, K. Does a university teacher need to change e-learning beliefs and practices when using a social networking site? A longitudinal case study. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2013,44, 571–580. [CrossRef] 53. Veletsianos, G. Open practices and identity: Evidence from researchers and educators’ social media participation. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2013,44, 639–651. [CrossRef] 54. Araujo, J.C. El componente social. Un indicador del trabajo colaborativo online. EDMETIC. Rev. De Educ. Mediática Y Tic 2019 ,8, 171–200. [CrossRef] 55. Marín, V.; Cabero, J. Las redes sociales en educación: Desde la innovación a la investigación educativa RIED. Rev. Iberoam. De Educ. A Distancia 2019,22, 25–33. [CrossRef] 56. Sobaih, A.E.; Moustafa, M. Speaking the same language: The value of social networking sites for hospitality and tourism higher education in Egypt. J. Hosp. Tour. Educ. 2016,28, 46–56. [CrossRef] 57. Al-ufi, A.; Fulton, C. Use of social networking tools for informal scholarly communication in humanities and social sciences disciplines. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014,147, 436–445. [CrossRef] 58. Romero, O.C. Social Media as learning tool in higher education: The case of Mexico and South Korea. Rev. Electrónica Sinéctica 2015,44, 1–15. 59. Mazer, J.P.; Murphy, R.E.; Simonds, C.S. I’ll see you on “Facebook”: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Commun. Educ. 2007,56, 1–17. [CrossRef] 60. Paul, J.A.; Baker, H.M.; Cochran, J.D. Effect of online social networking on student academic performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012,28, 2117–2127. [CrossRef] 61. Sijtsma, K. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 2009 ,74, 107–120. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 62. Buxarrais, M.R. Redes sociales y educación. Educ. Knowl. Soc. 2016,17, 15–20. [CrossRef] 63. Durak, H.Y.; Seferoglu, S. Modeling of variables related to problematic social media usage: Social desirability tendency example. Scand. J. Psychol. 2019. [CrossRef] 64. Lafaurie, A.M.; Sinning, P.A.; Valencia, J.A. WhatsApp y Facebook como mediación pedagógica en procesos de Orientación Socio Ocupacional. Educ. Y Educ. 2018,21, 179–199. [CrossRef] 65. Hershkovizt, A.; Forkosh, A. Teacher-Student Relationship and Facebook-Mediated Communication: Student Perceptions. Comunicar 2017,53, 91–101. [CrossRef] 66. Almobarraz, A. Utilization of YouTube as an information resource to support university courses. Electron. Libr. 2018 ,36, 71–81. [CrossRef] 67. Marín, V.; Negre, F.; Pérez, A. Entornos y redes personales de aprendizaje (PLE-PLN) para el aprendizaje colaborativo. Comunicar 2014,42, 35–43. [CrossRef] 68. Yarosh, S.; Bonsignore, E.; McRoberts, S.; Peyton, T. YouthTube: Youth video authorship on YouTube and Vine. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, San Francisco, CA, USA, 27 February–2 March 2016; pp. 1423–1437. [CrossRef] 69. Orús, C.; Barlés, M.J.; Belanche, D.; Casaló, L.; Fraj, E.; Gurrea, R. The effects of learner-generated videos for YouTube on learning outcomes and satisfaction. Comput. Educ. 2016,95, 254–269. [CrossRef] 70. McMillan, J.H.; Schumacher, S. Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2010. 71. Latorre, A.; Del Rincón, D.; Arnal, J. Bases Metodológicas De La Investigación Educativa; Ediciones Experiencia: Barcelona, Spain, 2003. 72. Barroso, J.; Cabero, J. La Investigación Educativa en TIC. Visiones Practices; Síntesis: Madrid, Spain, 2010. 73. Soldz, S. MINAP: Stata Module to Calculate Minimun Average Partial Correlation for Principal Components, Econpapers 2002. Available online: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:boc:bocode:s429601 (accessed on 28 December 2020). 74. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15; StataCorp LLC: College Station, TX, USA, 2017. 75. Verma, J.P. Data Analysis in Management with SPSS Software; Springer: London, UK, 2013. 76. Costello, A.B.; Osborne, J.W. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2005 ,10, 1–9. Available online: https://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2020). 77. Frabigar, L.R.; Wegener, D.T.; MacCallum, R.C.; Strahan, E.J. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol. Methods 1999,4, 272–299. [CrossRef] 78. Teo, T. A case for using structural equation modeling (SEM) in educational technology research. Br. J. Eductional Technol. 2010 ,41, E89–E91. [CrossRef] 79. Muthén, L.K.; Muthén, B.O. Mplus User’s Guide, 8th ed.; Muthén Muthén: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1998–2017. 80. Shumacker, R.E.; Lomax, R.G. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2004. 81. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, 3rd ed.; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 2015. 82. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 2835 18 of 18 83. Acevedo, J.P. FACTORTEST: Stata Module to Perform Tests for Appropriateness of Factor Analysis. Statistical Software Components S436001, Boston College Department of Economics. 2003. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s43600 1.html (accessed on 10 December 2020). 84. Gorsuch, R.L. Factor Analysis, 2nd ed.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, MI, USA, 1983. 85. Doornik, J.A.; Hansen, H. An omnibus test for univariate and multivariate normality. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2008 ,70, 927–939. [CrossRef] 86. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: New York, NY, USA, 2014. 87. Hayton, J.C.; Allen, D.G.; Scarpello, V. Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 2004,7, 191–205. [CrossRef] 88. Velicer, W.F.; Eaton, C.A.; Fava, J.L. Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors of components. In Problem and Solutions in Human Assessment; Goffin, R.D., Helmes, E., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2000. [CrossRef] 89. Ender, P. Fapara. Parallel Analysis for Pca and Factor Analysis. UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group. 2000. Available online: https: //stats.idre.ucla.edu/stata/faq/how-to-do-parallel-analysis-for-pca-or-factor-analysis-in-stata/ (accessed on 10 December 2020). 90. Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011,2, 53–55. [CrossRef] 91. Dunn, T.J.; Baguley, T.; Brunsden, V. From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br. J. Psychol. 2014,105, 399–412. [CrossRef] 92. McDonald, R.P. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1999. 93. Peters, G.; Jorn, Y. Userfriendlyscience: Quantitative Analysis Made Accessible, R Package Version 0.7.2. Available online: https://userfriendlyscience.com (accessed on 5 December 2020). 94. Bandalos, D.L.; Gerstner, J.J. Using factor analysis in test construction. In Principles and Methods of Test Construction: Standards and Recent Advances; Schweizer, K., DiStefano, C., Eds.; Hogrefe: Boston, MA, USA, 2016; pp. 26–51. 95. West, S.G.; Taylor, A.B.; Wu, W. Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling; Hoyle, R.H., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 209–231. 96. Wang, J.; Wang, X. Structural Equation Modeling: Applications Using Mplus; John Wiley Sons: Chichester, UK, 2012. [CrossRef] 97. Muthén, B.; Du Toit, S.H.C.; Spisic, D. Robust Inference Using Weighted Least Squares and Quadratic Estimating Equations in Latent Variable Modeling with Categorical and Continuous Outcomes; University of California: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1997; Available online: http://www.statmodel.com/bmuthen/articles/Article_075.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2020). 98. Booth, S.; Goodman, S.; Kirkup, G. Gender Differences in Learning and Working with Technology: Social Constructs and Cultural Contexts; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2010. 99. De la Garza, R.; Tellez, E. Género y TIC. Por una Sociedad de la Información con Perspectiva de Género. En E. Tellez-Carvajal (Edit.), Derecho y TIC. Vertientes Actuales; Universidad de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas: Mexico City, Mexico, 2016; pp. 49–78. 100. Andújar, A.; Cruz, M. Mobile Instant Messaging: Whatsapp and its Potential to Develop Oral Skills. Comunicar 2017 ,50, 43–52. [CrossRef] 101. Beaunoyer, E.; Dupéré, S.; Guitton, M.J. COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts andmitigation strategies. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020,111, 106424. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 102. Miller, G. Social distancing prevents infections, but it can have unintended consequences. Science 2020. [CrossRef] 103. Dong, Y.; Xu, C.; Chai, C.S.; Zhai, X. Exploring the Structural Relationship Among Teachers’ Technostress, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), Computer Self-efficacy and School Support. Asia Pac. Edu. Res. 2019 ,29, 147–157. [CrossRef] 104. Vate-U-Lan, P. Psychological impact of e-learning on social network sites: Online students’ attitudes and their satisfaction with life. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2020,32, 27–40. [CrossRef] 105. OECD. Education Responses to Covid-19: Embracing Digital Learning and Online Collaboration. 2020. Available online: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=120_1205448ksud7oaj2&title=Education_responses_to_Covid19_Embracing_ digital_learning_and_online_collaboration (accessed on 15 January 2021). 106. Topal, A.D. Examination of university students’ level of satisfaction and readiness for e-courses and the relationship between them. Eur. J. Contemp. Educ. 2016 ,15, 7–23. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1095972.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2021).