Digital Competence of Higher Education Students as a Predictor of Academic Success

Digital competence of Higher Education students as a predictor of academic success Abstract: The purpose of the present study is to analyze the digital competence of Higher Education students, as a function of their academic performance (have either repeated or a not previously), as well as to predict its significant predictors. For this, an ex-post factor and a sample of 17301 students from Chile (Latin America) were utilized. A questionnaire composed of a total of 30 items, classified into five endogenous and exogenous dimensions through a causal model, adapted from the works of Gutiérrez-Castillo (2013), Gutiérrez-Castillo & Cabero (2016) and Gutiérrez-Castillo et al. (2017), was administered via online to the students. The results showed statistically significant differences in digital competence, as a function of repeating an academic year or not, with better scores for the latter. Also, factors such as the number of digital resources utilized for the teachinglearning process, the previous preparation for managing their studies, as well as the level of education of the parents, mainly the father, significantly had an influence on both types of students. This study highlights the importance of the development of an adequate digital competence which has an influence on the learning of the students and their posterior class promotion. Keywords: Post-secondary education, 21st century skills, digital competence 1. Introduction It is well known that in recent decades, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), in this digital world, have revolutionized all sectors of society, from the way we communicate and work to the educational field. In short, has become a vitally important component in the workforce, recreationally, and in schools (Goriss-Hunter et al., 2022). ICT can impact student learning when teachers are digitally literate and understand how to integrate it into curriculum (UNESCO, 2021). The digital competence of teachers and students is not a new subject, and has been addressed from different conceptual frameworks, such as the DigComEdu model (Ghomi, & Redecker, 2019; Cabero-Almenara & Palacios-Rodríguez, 2020), the PEAT (Pedagogical, ethical, attitudinal and technical) dimensions developed by DICTE (2019), TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) (Miguel-Revilla et al., 2020). These competencies have been measured with self-perception instruments, such as those designed by the following authors, self-perception instruments created by the authors themselves (Gutiérrez-Castillo et al., 2017; Cabero-Almenara, et al., 2020; Guillen- Gamez et al., 2021), or others of a similar nature such as those developed by Cerdá et al., (2022). Likewise, this construct has been analyzed from the predictors that affect its acquisition, such as differences as a function of gender (Basantes-Andrade et al., 2020), the student’s age (Lucas et al., 2021), differences between teachers and students (Guillén- Gámez & Mayorga-Fernández, 2020), its relationship with social class (Cabero- Almenara & Ruiz-Palmero, 2018) or the area where the education center is located (Lebedeva, 2021). Not many studies have sought to associate it with the student’s repetition of academic years; that is, with the possible relationship that could be established between a high level of digital competence of the student and academic success. The student’s need to master digital competences has been perceived as being more necessary in the current state of pandemic (COVID-19) we are experiencing (Christopoulos & Sprangers, 2021) in which a high degree of mastery has been required to advance in education (Chang & Aytenew, 2021), and to be able to function in virtual learning environments (Learning Management Systems, LMS), to which the education process greatly shifted during this period (Sumardi et al., 2021). Assuming an online modality where the use of the ICT is constant implies that students dedicate more of their time for studying, for independently searching for additional information, for sharing, for collaborating, and ultimately, for taking on the reins of their own learning (Ariebowo, 2021), obtaining a better academic performance as compared to students who are enrolled in in-person modalities, in which a continuous contact with technology does not exist (Soffer & Nachmias, 2018). In light of this new educational panorama, the importance of this study is in the focus which it analyzes: how the level of digital competence of students can help improve their teaching-learning process, and consequently, their academic performance. However, in the acquisition and development of students on their digital training, various predictors can also affect which are necessary to analyze in order to take into account all the variables that may influence. In addition, it would be interesting to see how the influence of some predictors on others (co-variables) influence this level of competence. In this order of thoughts, we ask ourselves: 1. What is level of digital competence of Higher Education students according to their academic year repetition rate? 2. What are the predictors that significantly affect the level of digital competence of students, depending on whether or not they have repeated an academic year? 3. How does the relationship of co-predictors (one predictor over another) influence the level of digital competence of students? 2. Theoretical framework and related studies 2.1. Digital competence of students A clear and unique definition of the term digital competence does not exit (Park et al., 2020), as its terminology is affected and continuously developed by technological changes (Tømte, 2013). Although there is no such consensus, such development is necessary to transform information into knowledge and to work as part of a society with a digital environment (Marimon-Martí et al., 2022). This fact has been clearly reflected in the situation produced by the COVID-19, where both teachers and students have evidenced the lack of digital competence, which has had repercussions in the creation of situations of academic failure and learning difficulties (Navarro-Espinosa et al., 2021; Scully et al., 2021). In recent times there have been numerous studies on digital competence in university education in times of COVID-19. Studies such as García-Prieto et al. (2022), have shown that during this pandemic, university students have developed their level of digital competence, as have the teaching staff (Myyry et al., 2022). Recent studies such as those by Reisoğlu & Çebi (2020) summarizes some of the skills a good teacher must possess to achieve a quality education process with the students: training for technological literacy, communication and collaboration, safety, and the resolution of problems. In this context, Bernate et al. (2020) indicated that students had good levels of creativity and digital innovation for the creation and development of new projects. However, the students showed basic skills for searching, organizing, evaluating, and processing information, results similar to those from Fleaca & Stanciu (2019). On their part, Belmonte et al. (2019) provided evidence that students did not possess enough technological literacy skills to teach the next generation of digital natives, or trust in themselves to show and resolve problems through technological resources, although these results were contrary to those from Bernate et al. (2020). The critical results from Belmonte et al. (2019) were similar to those from van Deursen & Van Diepen (2013), as the students in their study had serious difficulties in defining problems of information. 2.2. The use of digital resources on the learning of the student Some studies have provided evidence on the positive relationship between the intensity and use of the ICT and Internet on the learning of students, with respect to their digital skills (Martinez-Lopez et al., 2020). For example, Mayor et al. (2018) found that the use of social networks was a moderate intensity predictor of the digital competence of 300 students in the Education university degree at the University of Seville (Spain). Ghomi & Redecker (2019) analyzed the relationship between the number of digital resources utilized by educators in the education process, and their level of digital competence. With a sample of 335 German teachers, who worked in different education stages, the results determined that those who utilized between 5 and 9 digital tools in the classroom, obtained higher levels of digital competence, as compared to those who utilized 0 to 4 resources. Similar results were found by Lucas et al. (2021), where the number of digital tools utilized for teaching and learning was the strongest predictor of the digital competence of the teachers. With less frequency, we also find the link between the parent’s use of the ICT and the learning of the children. For example, Hammer et al. (2021) used a sample of 1206 Secondary Education students along with their respective parents. The results showed that the parent’s beliefs and uses of digital media, more specifically smartphones, were closely related with self-efficacy and skills possessed by the children on the use of these digital resources. In parallel, other studies have analyzed how a greater use of digital resources increases the acquisition of new skills (Csordás, 2020), with a direct effect in academic performance (Cox & Marshall, 2007; Alderete & Formichella, 2016; Mehrvarz et al., 2021). More specifically, Maria & Awan (2019) analyzed the impact of digital media on the learning of 400 students from 16 universities in Multan (Pakistan). The results indicated that students who utilized social networks to obtain scientific knowledge obtained good grades, as compared to those who only used them for fun or entertainment. Similar results were found by Hernández-Martín et al. (2021), who stated that significant differences in digital competence were found between the students who utilized social networks more than 3 or 4 times per week, and those who used them every day. In general, we can confirm that the use of digital resources in the student’s teaching and learning process can affect their academic performance, and also, the low academic performance of an individual is the most distinctive characteristic of repeating a year during the educational period (García & Jiménez, 2019). 2.3. Other factors that have an influence on the digital competence of students Education researchers have long been interested in the positive effect of the level of education of the parents on the academic education of their children. Idris et al. (2020) explored the relationship between the education of the parents, and the academic performance of children, through the level of education of the father and the mother. With a sample of 510 Secondary Education students from 34 public schools in the district of Mardan (Pakistan), the findings revealed that the higher education of the father and mother positively contributed to the academic performance of the children. In a similar context, Odoh et al. (2017) examined the influence of the level of education of the parents, and the academic performance of the children (n=150), who were enrolled in the last year of accounting at the University of Nigeria. The results obtained indicated that the level of education of the parents had a significant influence on the academic performance of the children, thus recommending, among others, that the government must improve the literacy of the parents with a low level of education. Similar results were found by Li & Qiu (2018), Wijaya et al. (2020). With confounding results, through a longitudinal design with a control group (n=90), and an experimental group (n=84), the authors showed that the children who had fathers with a low level of education obtained a very good academic performance, although it was lower that children who had mothers with a low level of education. Other influences on the student's digital competence may be gender and age, which have been considered factors associated to the competence of students, as shown by the large amount of literature on these subjects in the last few years. With respect to gender, numerous studies have found that men tend to be more competent (Gnambs, 2017; Lucas et al., 2021; Çebi & Reisoğlu, 2020; Wild & Heuling, 2020). Other studies have found the opposite, although in a smaller number of studies (Krumsvik et al., 2016; Siddiq & Scherer, 2019), and some other studies point to the lack of differences (Guillén-Gámez & Peña, 2020; Usart et al., 2021). In terms of age, a few previous studies have concluded that older teachers or future teachers have more advanced competences (Wild & Heuling, 2020). However, contradictory results have also been found by other authors, who attest that older students self-evaluate with less competences than the younger students (Usart et al., 2021), although some of them recognized the need for professional development on the use of digital technologies (Hämäläinen et al., 2021). Other studies have not found age to be a significant factor for digital competence (Napal et al., 2018; Vega-Gea et al., 2021). Considering the different but related studies, as of today, there is a lack of studies on: (1) how the level of digital competence could have an effect on the academic performance of the students, and the consequences of repeating a year (García-Prieto, 2022); (2) how the level of education of the parents could have an influence on the level of digital competence of the children; and (3) how the time that passes between the last period of formal studies and the present one could have an influence on the competences of the students, more specifically in digital competences. From all these shortcomings, our contribution arises with this study, with the purpose of taking a step further in this type of study. Therefore, all of these are encompassed in the objectives of the study, which were described below: O1. To discover the level of digital competence of Higher Education students in relation to whether or not they had repeated a course or not. O2. To identify predictors that affect the acquisition of digital competence, for both students who have repeated a course at some point, as well as students who have never repeated. O3. To predict the level of digital competence, depending on the relationship of different co-variables (gender, age, number of digital resources, level of education of the father and mother, level of preparation to face educational changes, and time between one study and another). 3. Method 3.1. Design and participants To achieve the objectives set, a non-experimental, ex post facto design was utilized. The collection of data was conducted through a non-probabilistic, convenience sampling method (Emerson, 2015), during the 2020/2021 academic year, which was conducted online since the start of the pandemic. Our sample was composed by more than 20,000 students from the AIEP Andres Bello University in Chile. Once the database was screened with respect to lost or atypical values, the sample was composed by a total of 17,301 students. As for the sociodemographic characteristics, 68.70% were female (n=11.887), with an average age of 26.62 years old, who used between 2 and 3 technological devices to study during their first year of their degree; while 31.30% were men (n=5.414), with an average age of 28.20 years old, and with a mean use of 3 to 4 technological devices to study. With respect to repeating a year, 22.90% of the female students had repeated, while for the men, 28.40% had done so (n=1538). 3.2. Instrument The questionnaire was composed by a total of 30 items, classified into five endogenous and exogenous dimensions through a causal model, adapted from the works of Gutiérrez- Castillo (2013), Gutiérrez-Castillo & Cabero (2016) and Gutiérrez-Castillo et al. (2017). (The model was the following: DIM-A technological literacy (13 items), DIM-B, search and treatment of information (6 items); DIM-C, critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making (4 items), DIM-D, communication and collaboration (9 items), DIM-E, digital citizenship (6 items), DIM-F, creativity and innovation (6 items). The different dimensions of the model were justified starting from the works by Rush & Renguette (2017) (DIM-A); van Laar et al. (2019) (DIM-B); Pötzsch (2019) (DIM-C); Midtlund et al. (2021) (DIM-D); Mattson (2017) (CIM-E); and Genlott et al. (2019) (DIM-F). The causal model is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Causal model of the instrument The reliability criteria were satisfactory (table 1): this was measured with Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR), with adequate levels found for each dimension. With respect to validity, the instrument possessed convergent validity and discriminant validity, and was evaluated with a structural model. The convergent validity was measured for each dimension through the average variance extracted (AVE), with a good fit of the model found, as shown by values higher than 0.50, as observed in Table 1, and as recommended by the scientific literature (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The evaluation of the structural model was conducted with the R2 coefficient of determination, and the coefficients path and the bootstrapping technique starting with a value obtained with Student’s t test. These statistical tests showed a good fit of the instrument. Also, the SRMR (standardized root mean residual) provided a coefficient of 0.049, with a value lower than 0.08 recommended by Hu & Bentler (1999), as well as the NFI (Normed Fit Index) criteria, which should be greater or equal to 0.90 (Lohmöller, 1989), with a value of 0.903 provided. Therefore, the model was satisfactory. Table 1 Reliability of the instrument D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 Cronbach’s alpha 0.88 0.91 0.88 0.90 0.94 0.95 CR 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.95 0.96 AVE 0.62 0.74 0.81 0.70 0.80 0.80 4. Results The results are divided into the following sections: the first analyses and compares the means of the student’s digital competence as a function of having repeated or not; the second section analyzes the significant predictors of the student’s digital competence through the use of multiple linear regressions; and lastly, the co-variables that are predictors of a high digital competence are identified. 4.1. Descriptive results for the students who are repeaters and those who are not To answer the question number 1, the figure 2 shows the level of digital competence of the students for each dimension of the instrument, depending on having repeated an academic year. It is observed that the level of digital competence is greater in dimension A (technological literacy), for both types of students, with it being higher for the nonrepeaters. On the contrary, it is observed that the students possess an inferior competence in dimension C (critical thinking, problem solution, and decision making), and dimension F (creativity and innovation), for both types of students, although it was lower for the repeaters. If we set the criteria that students had to have a medium-high (7.5/10) digital competence, it was observed that only dimensions A and B obtained scores higher than 7.50. In general, it was observed that the non-repeating students obtained higher scores than the repeaters in all the dimensions of the instrument. Figure 2. Digital competence of the students as a function of repeating or not an academic year at some point. To verify if the differences found in the scores shown in Figure 2 were significant, statistical and comparative tests were performed with these scores. The Kolmogorov- Smirnov test indicated the non-normality of the data in all the dimensions of the study and the overall score (p<0.05). However, Srivastava (1959) affirmed that non-normality would not have a serious effect on the distribution of data from large samples (in our case, n=17,301). Therefore, parametric (Student’s t test), as well as non-parametric (Mann- Whitney test) statistics were utilized to compare the distributions as a function of the students repeating or not, to compare if similar values were obtained in both types of tests. With respect to the effect size of the cases in which significant differences were found, Hattie (1992) interpreted the magnitude of the effect size for education contexts according to the formula by Cohen: values lower than 0.1 with “developmental effects”, between 0.2 and 0.3 with “teacher effects”, and values greater than 0.4 with “Zone of desired effects”. Table 2 shows the dimensions in which significant differences were found in the scores between both types of students. It was observed that after the application of both statistical tests, the results were similar: statistically significant differences were found in the level of digital competence of the student, as a function of repeating an academic year or not. With respect to the effect sizes, it was observed that all of them were small in all the dimensions (approximately 0.1). Table 2 Statistical comparison for each dimension of the instrument between the repeating and non-repeating students Dimensions Mann-Whitney Student’s t test U Z p (d) t p (d) DIM-A 26576465.500 -4.239 .001 .064 4.974 .001 0.088 DIM-B 26406632.000 -4.833 .001 .073 5.313 .001 0.094 DIM-C 26732565.500 -3.681 .001 .056 3.789 .001 0.067 DIM-D 26893581.000 -3.110 .001 .047 3.417 .001 0.060 DIM-E 26288476.000 -5.253 .001 .08 5.536 .001 0.098 DIM-F 26570239.000 -4.252 .001 .065 4.596 .001 0.081 Total CD 26424843.000 -4.764 .001 .072 5.298 .001 0.094 4.2. Identification of factors that affect the level of competence of the students To answer the question number 2, variables were identified which had an influence on the digital competence of students, through two multiple linear regressions (MLR). The first regression focused on the total level of digital competence of the students (sum of all the dimensions) for the students who had never repeated, while the second regression was centered on the students who had repeated at some point. It was estimated with the ordinary least squares method, with the forward method, in which each variable is inserted into a new model if it attains the level of significance established (>.05) once the influence from the other variables which have entered the model is eliminated (principle of parsimony). The different variables analyzed are described in Table 3, considering that they were codified into dummy variables. Table 3 Description of the study variables ID Variable Categories and values Digital Competence Max. 10 points. IV 1 Gender Female (0); Male (1) IV 2 Age Scala IV 3 How much time has passed since your last period of formal education? Less than a year (0); between 1 and 2 years (1); between 3 and 5 years (2); between 5 and 10 years (3); more than 10 years (4) IV 4 How prepared are you to face the challenge of studying your degree? 7-point Likert scale IV 5 Number of digital resources used throughout the year to study Scale IV 6 Level of education of the Father None (0); Early Childhood Education (1); Primary Education (2); Secondary Education (3), Baccalaureate (4); University Degree (5); Doctorate (6) IV 7 Level of education of the Mother Table 4 shows that for students who had repeated at some point, it is in the fifth step in which a greater percentage of the explained variance is obtained (14.20%). The regression model was statistically significant, F (4, 4253) = 141.978, p< .01. For the students who had repeated a year previously, it was observed the greatest percentage of variance explained was achieved on the sixth step (14.60). Also, the model was also significant, F (6, 13035) = 372,080, p< .01. These data show that the percentage of total variance explained in the digital competence of the students, through sociodemographic and academic variables, is moderately good and homogenous in both groups. Table 4 RLM predictive model N= 17.301 R2 repeater = 14.20% R2 non-repeater = 14.60% Type Models R R2 R2 corrected Standard error Change in R2 Repeated at some point 1: IV5 + IV4 .247 .061 .061 1.749 .061 2: IV5 + IV4 .338 .114 .113 1.699 .053 3: IV5 + IV4 + IV6 .371 .138 .137 1.676 .024 4: IV5 + IV4 + IV6 + IV2 .376 .142 .141 1.673 .004 5: IV5 + IV4 + IV6 + IV3 .378 .143 .142 1.672 .001 Never repeated 1: IV4 + IV5 .270 .073 .073 1.661 .073 2: IV4 + IV5 .344 .118 .118 1.620 .045 3: IV4 + IV5 + IV6 .374 .140 .140 1.600 .022 4: IV4 + IV5 + IV6 + IV2 .380 .145 .144 1.596 .005 5: IV4 + IV5 + IV6 + IV2 + IV3 .381 .146 .145 1.595 .001 6: IV4 + IV5 + IV6 + IV2 + IV3 + IV1 .382 .146 .146 1.595 .001 Table 5 shows the factorial loads standardized for each type of student, along with its level of significance. For the students who had repeated at some point, it was observed that the variable with the strongest influence at the level of digital competence was the number of digital resources used to study (β= 0.218; t= 15.090; p. < .05), with values that were very similar to the variable “previous preparation for studying the degree” (β= 0.214; t=14.723; p. < .05). These coefficients are also similar for the students who had never repeated, for the number of digital resources (β= 0.199; t= 23.913; p. < .05), as well as the previous preparation for studying the degree (β= 0.228; t= 27.305; p. < .05). As for the significant variables with a weaker influence, it was observed that for the repeaters, it was the predictor age, with a negative load (β= -0.093; t= -4.910; p. < .05); while for the non-repeaters, it was gender (β= -0.026; t= -3.242; p. < .05). Lastly, the assumption of multicollinearity was verified through the tolerance values (Tol) and the variance inflation factor (VIF). As observed, the tolerance values were greater than 0.6, and the VIF values were lower than 10, which indicates non-collinearity (Chan, 2004). Considering the coefficients standardized for each type of student, the rate of success on the digital competence of the student will be calculated through its corresponding slope of a line for each type of student. Yrepeater= 5.067 -0.093*VI 2 + 0.050* VI 3 + 0.214*VI 4 + 0.218*VI 5 + 0.147*VI 6 Ynon-repeater= 5.303 - 0.026*VI 1 - 0.099*VI 2 + 0.044*VI 3 +, 0.228*VI 4 + 0.199*VI 5 + 0.143*VI 6 Table 5 Factorial loads for each model and their independent variables Has repeated at some point Has never repeated β t p. Tol. VIF β t p. Tol. VIF Constant 5.067 31.874 .001* 5.303 62.199 0001 VI 1 0.012 0.810 .418 .963 1.039 -0.026 -3.242 .001* .981 1.019 VI 2 -0.093 -4.910 .001* .661 1.781 -0.099 -8.582 .001* .693 2.028 Chang, C., & Aytenew, G. (2021). Facing Challenges of Covid-19: The Perspective of China and Ethiopia Educational Institutions. Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 62-69. Christopoulos, A., & Sprangers, P. (2021). Integration of educational technology during the Covid-19 pandemic: An analysis of teacher and student receptions. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1964690. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1964690 Cox, M. J., & Marshall, G. (2007). Effects of ICT: do we know what we should know? Education and information technologies, 12(2), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-007-9032-x Csordás, A. (2020). Diversifying effect of digital competence. AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 12(665-2020-1220), 3-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.303930 Dicte (2019). Pedagogical, ethical, attitudinal and technical dimensions of digital competence in teacher education. Developing ICT in Teacher Education Erasmus+project. https://dicte.oslomet.no/dicte/ Emerson, R. W. (2015). Convenience sampling, random sampling, and snowball sampling: How does sampling affect the validity of research? Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109(2), 164- 168. Fleaca, E., & Stanciu, R. D. (2019). Digital-age learning and business engineering education–a pilot study on students’ E-skills. Procedia manufacturing, 32, 1051-1057. García Perales, R., & Jiménez Fernández, C. (2019). Relación entre repetición de curso, rendimiento académico e igualdad en educación: Las aportaciones de PISA. Revista Educación, Política y Sociedad, 4(1), 84-108. García-Prieto, F. J., López-Aguilar, D., & Delgado-García, M. (2022). Competencia digital del alumnado universitario y rendimiento académico en tiempos de COVID-19: [Digital competence of university students and academic performance in times of COVID-19]. Pixel-Bit. Revista De Medios y Educación, 64, 165–199. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.91862 Genlott, A. A., Grönlund, Å., & Viberg, O. (2019). Disseminating digital innovation in school–leading second-order educational change. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 3021-3039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09908-0 Ghomi, M., & Redecker, C. (2019). Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu): Development and Evaluation of a Self-assessment Instrument for Teachers' Digital Competence. In CSEDU (1) (pp. 541-548). https://doi.org/10.5220/0007679005410548 Gnambs, T. (2021). The development of gender differences in information and communication technology (ICT) literacy in middle adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106533 Goriss-Hunter, A., Sellings, P. & Echter, A. (2022). Information Communication Technology in schools: Students Exercise ‘Digital Agency’ to Engage with Learning. Tech Know Learn 27, 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09509-2 Guillén-Gámez, F. D., & Mayorga-Fernández, M. J. (2020). Quantitative-comparative research on digital competence in students, graduates and professors of faculty education: An analysis with ANOVA. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4157-4174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10160-0 Guillén-Gámez, F. D., & Peña, M. P. (2020). Análisis Univariante de la Competencia Digital en Educación Física: un estudio empírico [Univariate Analysis of the Digital Competence in Physical Education: an empirical study]. Retos, 37, 326-332. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v37i37.72052 Guillen-Gámez, F., Mayorga-Fernández, M. J., & Contreras-Rosado, J. A. (2021). Validity and reliability of an instrument to evaluate the digital competence of teachers in relation to online tutorials in the stages of Early Childhood Education and Primary Education. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 21(67), 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/red.474981 Gutiérrez-Castillo, J.J. (2013). Estudio de la competencia digital del alumnado de educación superior. Un análisis de las titulaciones de grado de educación infantil y primaria en la comunidad autónoma de Andalucía. [Tesis doctoral inédita]. Universidad de Sevilla. Gutiérrez-Castillo, J. J., & Cabero Almenara, J. (2016). Estudio de caso sobre la autopercepción de la competencia digital del estudiante universitario de las titulaciones de grado de Educación Infantil y Primaria. Profesorado, Revista De Currículum Y Formación Del Profesorado, 20(2), 180-199. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v20i2.10414 Gutiérrez-Castillo, J.J., Cabero-Almenara, J., & Estrada Vidal, L. (2017). Diseño y validación de un instrumento de evaluación de la competencia digital del estudiante universitario. Espacios, 38(10), 16 Hämäläinen, R., Nissinen, K., Mannonen, J., Lämsä, J., Leino, K., & Taajamo, M. (2021). Understanding teaching professionals' digital competence: What do PIAAC and TALIS reveal about technologyrelated skills, attitudes, and knowledge? Computers in Human Behavior, 117, 106672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106672 Hammer, M., Scheiter, K., & Stürmer, K. (2021). New technology, new role of parents: How parents' beliefs and behavior affect students’ digital media self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 116, 106642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106642 Hattie, J. (1992). Measuring the effects of schooling. Australian Journal of education, 36(1), 5-13. Hernández-Martín, A., Martín-del-Pozo, M., & Iglesias-Rodríguez, A. (2021). Pre-adolescents’ digital competences in the area of safety. Does frequency of social media use mean safer and more knowledgeable digital usage?. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 1043-1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10302-4 Hu, L. y Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fitindexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternative. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. Idris, M., Hussain, S., & Ahmad, N. (2020). Relationship between parents’ education and their children’s academic achievement. Journal of Arts & Social Sciences (JASS), 7(2), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.46662/jass-vol7-iss2-2020(82-92) Krumsvik, R. J., Jones, L. Ø., Øfstegaard, M., & Eikeland, O. J. (2016). Upper secondary school teachers’ digital competence: Analysed by demographic, personal and professional characteristics. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 11(03), 143-164. http://www.doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x2016- 03-02 Lebedeva, L. G. (2021, April). Digital Competence of Urban and Rural Residents (Generational Aspect). In International Scientific Conference “Digital Transformation of the Economy: Challenges, Trends, New Opportunities” (pp. 867-873). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- 83175-2_105 Li, Z., & Qiu, Z. (2018). How does family background affect children’s educational achievement? Evidence from Contemporary China. The Journal of Chinese Sociology, 5(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-018-0083-8 Lohmöller, J.-B. (1989). Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares, Physica: Heidelberg. Lucas, M., Bem-Haja, P., Siddiq, F., Moreira, A., & Redecker, C. (2021). The relation between in-service teachers' digital competence and personal and contextual factors: What matters most? Computers & Education, 160, 104052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104052 Maria, K., & Awan, A. G. (2019). Impact of socio-cultural factors on academic performance of students in District Multan-Pakistan. Global Journal of Management, Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(3), 425-452. Marimon-Martí,M., Romeu-Fontanillas,T., Ojando-Pons,E., & Esteve-González,V.(2022). Competencia Digital Docente: autopercepción en estudiantes de educación[Teacher Digital Competence: self-perception in education students]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 65, 275-303. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.93208 Martinez-Lopez, R., Yot-Domínguez, C., & Trigo, M. E. (2020). Analysis of the internet use and students' Web 2.0 digital competence in a Russian university. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(3), 316-342. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2020.107986 Mattson, K. (2017). Digital citizenship in action: empowering students to engage in online communities. International Society for Technology in Education. Mayor Buzón, V., García Pérez, R., & Rebollo Catalán, M. Á. (2019). Explorando factores predictores de la competencia digital en las redes sociales virtuales. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 56, 51-69. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2019.i56.03 Mehrvarz, M., Heidari, E., Farrokhnia, M., & Noroozi, O. (2021). The mediating role of digital informal learning in the relationship between students' digital competence and their academic performance. Computers & Education, 167, 104184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104184 Midtlund, A., Instefjord, E. J., & Lazareva, A. (2021). Digital communication and collaboration in lower secondary school. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 16(02), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2021-02-03 Miguel-Revilla, D., Martínez-Ferreira, J. M., & Sánchez-Agustí, M. (2020). Assessing the digital competence of educators in social studies: An analysis in initial teacher training using the TPACK- 21 model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5281 Morabito, C., Figueroa, J. L., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2018). Effects of high versus low-quality preschool education: A longitudinal study in Mauritius. Economics of Education Review, 65, 126-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.06.006 Myyry L., Kallunki V., Katajavuori N., Repo S., Tuononen T., Anttila H., Kinnunen P., Haarala-Muhonen A., & Pyörälä, E.(2022) COVID-19 Accelerating Academic Teachers’ Digital Competence in Distance Teaching. Front. Educ., 7:770094. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.770094 Napal Fraile, M., Peñalva-Vélez, A., & Mendióroz Lacambra, A. M. (2018). Development of digital competence in secondary education teachers’ training. Education Sciences, 8(3), 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030104 Navarro-Espinosa, J. A., Vazquez-Abellán, M., Perea-Moreno, A. J., Predós-Pérez, G., Aparicio-Martínez, P. & Martínez-Jiménez, P. (2021). The higher Education Sustainability before and during the CoVId-19 Pandemic: A Spanish and Ecuadorian Case. Sustainability, 13, 6363. doi:10.3390/su13116363 Odoh, L. C., Ugwuanyi, U. B., Odigbo, B. E., & Chukwuani, N. V. (2017). Influence of parental occupation and level of education on academic performance of accounting students in Nigeria. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(10), 21-27. Park, H., Kim, H. S., & Park, H. W. (2020). A scientometric study of digital literacy, ICT literacy, information literacy, and media literacy. Journal of Data and Information Science, 6(2), 116-138. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0001 Pötzsch, H. (2019). Critical digital literacy: Technology in education beyond issues of user competence and labour-market qualifications. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 17(2), 221-240. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v17i2.1093 Reisoğlu, İ., & Çebi, A. (2020). How can the digital competences of pre-service teachers be developed? Examining a case study through the lens of DigComp and DigCompEdu. Computers & Education, 156, 103940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103940 Richard, M. M., Solanas, A., Ledesma, R. D., Introzzi, I. M., & Ramón, M. F. L. (2008). Técnicas estadísticas de clasificación: un estudio comparativo y aplicado. Psicothema, 20(4), 863-871. Ritschard, G. (2013). CHAID and earlier supervised tree methods (pp. 70-96). Routledge. Rush Hovde, M., & Renguette, C. C. (2017). Technological literacy: A framework for teaching technical communication software tools. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(4), 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2017.1385998 Scully, D., Lehane, P., Scully, C. (2021). It is no longer scary’: digital learning before and during the Covid- 19 pandemic in Irish secondary schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 159-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1854844 Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2019). Is there a gender gap? A meta-analysis of the gender differences in students' ICT literacy. Educational research review, 27, 205-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.007 Soffer, T., & Nachmias, R. (2018). Effectiveness of learning in online academic courses compared with face‐to‐face courses in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 534-543. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12258 Srivastava, A. B. L. (1959). Effect of non-normality on the power of the analysis of variance test. Biometrika, 46(1/2), 114-122. Sumardi, D., Suryani, N., & Musadad, A. A. (2021). Website-Based Learning Management System (LMS) as a Tool for Learning in the Covid-19 Pandemic Period for Junior High Schools. Journal of Education Technology, 5(3), 346-355. http://dx.doi.org/10.23887/jet.v5i3.38371 Tømte, C. E. (2013). Educating Teachers for the New Millennium?-Teacher training, ICT and digital competence. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 10(Jubileumsnummer), 138-154. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2015-Jubileumsnummer-10 UNESCO (2021). Information and communication technology (ICT) in education. https://bit.ly/3KYW5j7 Usart Rodríguez, M., Lazaro Cantabrana, J. L., & Gisbert Cervera, M. (2021). Validation of a tool for selfevaluating teacher digital competence. Educación XX1, 24(1), 353-373, http://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.27080 van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Van Diepen, S. (2013). Information and strategic Internet skills of secondary students: A performance test. Computers & Education, 63, 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.007 van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J., van Dijk, J. A., & de Haan, J. (2019). Determinants of 21st-century digital skills: A large-scale survey among working professionals. Computers in human behavior, 100, 93- 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.017 Vega-Gea, E., Calmaestra, J., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2021). Percepción docente del uso de las TIC en la Educación Inclusiva [Teacher perception on the use of ICT in Inclusive Education]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 62, 235-268. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.90323 Wijaya, A. W. A., Indasari, S. R., Samosir, F., & Petrus, S. (2020). The Roles of Parents and Community in Supporting Children’s Literacy Development. In International Conference on Early Childhood Education and Parenting 2009 (ECEP 2019) (pp. 27-31). Atlantis Press. Wild, S., & Heuling, L. S. (2020). How do the digital competences of students in vocational schools differ from those of students in cooperative higher education institutions in Germany? Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 12(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-020- 00091-y