The Challenge of Initial Training for Early Childhood Teachers. A Cross Sectional Study of Their Digital Competences

sustainability Article The Challenge of Initial Training for Early Childhood Teachers. A Cross Sectional Study of Their Digital Competences Rosalía Romero-Tena , Raquel Barragán-Sánchez, Carmen Llorente-Cejudo and Antonio Palacios-Rodríguez * Department of Teaching and Educational Organization, University of Seville, 41013 Seville, Spain; rromer[email protected] (R.R.-T.); [email protected] (R.B.-S.); [email protected] (C.L.-C.) *Correspondence: apr[email protected] Received: 24 May 2020; Accepted: 9 June 2020; Published: 11 June 2020   Abstract: The scarce presence of technologies at the early childhood education level today is a cause for worry. This study aims to provide information on the training of future early childhood education teachers and their relationship with technologies. The work is based on a pretest–posttest methodology through a cross sectional descriptive study. The sample is made up of 535 4th year students of the Degree in Early Childhood Education at the University of Seville. Descriptive and contrast analyses were performed as well as contrast statistics and effect size. The results show that the training received by the students was a key element to improve self-perception of digital competence. There were statistically significant changes between before and after receiving the training. The changes produced always meant an improvement in the students’ self-perception. In the study of their profiles, relevant changes were also identified. Whereas before training subjects were grouped into newcomer and explorer categories, after training they were grouped into the highest profiles: integrator, expert, and pioneer. For this reason, it is necessary to manage training plans to allow future teachers to position themselves at an expert level. Keywords: higher education; early childhood education; ICT; digital competence; teacher training 1. Introduction The importance of training future teachers of early childhood education (ECE) in information and communication technology (ICT) is one of the concerns that is recently leading researchers in the area to look for reasons that explain the reason for the low presence of technologies at this educational level. Since its appearance, technologies have been widely introduced in ECE programs with the aim of children learning and playing. However, the significant integration of technologies in early learning, and its implication in children’s cognitive development, is not very evident. This is demonstrated by the few studies and research carried out in this regard. Currently, children come with very large technological baggage from their homes. It is obvious that many of the children who attend early childhood and primary education centers have grown up in homes where multimedia and multimodal forms of expression are very common. Therefore, their experiences of using digital technologies can be really extensive [ 1 , 2 ]. Together, the exceptional situation that COVID-19 has caused has forced the use of technologies to be intensified as an alternative to face-to-face education. In this very specific and unusual context, schools show the digital deficiencies of the system, despite the large number of resources available on some occasions and the goodwill of teachers and students. That is why, during the suspension of classroom classes, students without classes will spend even more hours at home using computers, mobile devices, and consoles. It is important to point out Sustainability 2020,12, 4782; doi:10.3390/su12114782 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020,12, 4782 2 of 17 that digital teaching competence is essential for the application of active methodologies and adapted to current students [3]. With this background, it is obvious that children in early childhood education do not understand why, when they arrive at school, their communication, play, and learning tools are not similar to those used in their family contexts. Against this background, early childhood education teachers have to rethink what they do in their classrooms and with what resources. They are the key and central axis to achieve and promote the integration of ICT in professional practices and developing guidelines for the use of ICT in educational spaces, under the support of administrations and study plans. For this reason, there is no doubt that everything regarding the initial training of early childhood teachers in ICT is of interest. Furthermore, one must consider the premise that technologies are present in the daily lives of these children, from one to six years old. Therefore, for them, they have already become invisible tools in their environment. Even so, the issue of technologies for learning at early ages goes unnoticed in most studies and research, usually linked to primary education, forgetting the peculiarities of early childhood education. For this reason, it is more than evident that there is a problem that is not being adequately addressed. This study aimed to provide information on the training of future teachers of early childhood education and its relationship with technologies. Specifically, it was about knowing the self-perceptions towards technologies before their university training in ICT and after having received it. Then, it was about knowing if these self-perceptions can evolve and change their conception when acting by incorporating ICT in their future curricular practice. Finally, we tried to understand how these self-perceptions can influence the way in which students perceive their own digital competence and their view about the presence of ICT in their classroom. 2. ICT Self-Perceptions of Early Childhood Teachers The contributions and the trust that, little by little, the technologies are acquiring from educators, parents, and the students themselves have led to rethinking educational practice as a variety of resources are used and mastered in ECE classrooms [ 4 , 5 ]. However, the real integration of technologies for educational purposes in classroom practice has not been found in most of the studies carried out [ 6 , 7 ]. The integration of technologies in the curriculum has significant implications for teachers [ 8 ]. For them , the central problem is “change“ [ 9 ]. Changes around the use of ICTs have a profound impact on teachers’ work, such as the methods of instruction, the content of teaching, and their relationship with young children. All this has generated new expectations about their work and their roles to face digital challenges. This entails their incorporation into teaching practice. Multimodal digital forms of expression and communication offer a significant change in our culture and, therefore, in the challenges for educators [10]. Some of the studies carried out indicate that the factors that influence the integration of ICT in classrooms can be multiple and complex; others affirm that the effective use of ICT in education depends, to a large extent, on the way that teachers integrate it in teaching and learning [ 11 , 12 ]. In fact, the central role of teachers in the use of technologies indicates that a fundamental reason why they are not used, and are poorly integrated in the classroom, is directly related to the intentions and capacities of teachers to integrate them, more than with the lack of technology in the classroom [13,14]. For this reason, it must be borne in mind that rather than blaming pedagogy, the knowledge, and skills that early childhood teachers have, one should point to those psychological factors such as their self-perceptions of use. This fact will directly influence their integration in the classroom. The psychological context of teaching, especially teachers’ perceptions, is crucial to understand their daily work with ICT [ 15 ]. Thus, those perceptions that teachers have about the use of ICTs can strongly influence their practices in the classroom [ 16 ]. That is why it is significant that, unless teachers perceive ICT as valuable, they will not be willing or able to use it in a way that is productive in the teaching and learning processes [ 12 ]. Quite different is the case that teachers perceive that ICT is useful; there is a high probability that they will adopt them without any difficulty [16,17]. Sustainability 2020,12, 4782 3 of 17 These studies infer that teachers’ perceptions are a direct influencing factor in guaranteeing the successful use of technologies in the classroom. Deferments studies [ 18 ] find a high correspondence between teachers’ perceptions and pedagogical practices. Teachers’ positive perceptions of the benefits of technologies influence the frequency of use of technologies in the classroom. Teachers’ beliefs and perceptions are important as they provide the best indicators of the decisions individuals make throughout their lives. Therefore, they act as guides for thinking and behavior and positively influence individual work and learning practices [19]. The investigations cited above argue that teachers’ self-perceptions of learning and teaching are the true propositions that a teacher considers. These propositions are developed during the years that teachers spend in school: first as students (during their initial training) and, later, as teachers. It is with time and use that these beliefs or propositions become solid and robust. In this sense, several large groups could be established: content mastery vs. student orientation; transmission of information by the teacher vs. learning by the student; and direct reception/transmission vs. constructivism. Although it is true that the study of teachers’ perceptions on the integration of technologies in classrooms has been a recurring theme for years, it should also be noted that this has been focused, almost exclusively, on the stages of primary, secondary, and university education. Therefore, in particular , research on the perceptions and utilization strategies of infant teachers related to ICT in ECE is much scarcer than at other educational levels, almost non-existent. It is a topic that, as has been already mentioned, parents and educators are very concerned about: the profound impact that technologies are having on experiences, in addition to the learning outcomes, of children in the first years of schooling [20]. This article pays full attention to the importance of knowing whether the self-perceptions that students in the early childhood education university degree program have about working with ICT throughout their initial training may constitute an influential factor in the integration of technologies in their future classrooms. 3. Initial Training of Early Childhood Teachers: Digital Competences The training of future teachers in digital competences can be known through the different syllabi that are offered. In the specific context of this research, we looked at the Faculty of Education Sciences of the University of Seville (Spain). Despite the efforts and changes carried out in recent years, there are still great differences when it comes to equating the initial training offered to students from different European universities. These differences do not refer to elements of content and objectives, nor to their approach, since all universities offer technological literacy through the acquisition of basic knowledge about technological means, basic ICT skills, and knowledge of how to integrate the basic tools in the curriculum or in its methodology [ 21 ]. Ultimately, its purpose is to make students know how, where, and when to use ICT. The big difference lies in how this subject is included in the different study plans. The Andalusian Community, in which our study university is located, is an example. Of the eight existing universities, in four it is a “basic subject”, in two of them “optional”, and in the other two it does not even exist, as such. This panorama does not offer clarity regarding the importance and role of technologies in the studies of the early childhood education degree. More specifically, it raises inequality of knowledge, competencies, and skills among the students of the different universities who acquire training in digital skills for incorporation into infant education classrooms [22]. Some studies show that the level of digital competence of early childhood students is not in line with the fact that they are “digital natives” [ 23 ]. This idea is questioned in a few scientific works [ 24 – 29 ]. It is possible that teachers are digitally competent in other types of activities or tasks carried out in moments of inactivity and free time or leisure [ 30 ]. However, most teachers do not have enough digital competence to use ICT in their professional careers [21]. Adequate digital initial training makes students better perceive themselves in their development of critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making, as well as the fact that it will increase Sustainability 2020,12, 4782 4 of 17 their creative capacity and influence them to be more innovative, as demonstrated by the findings obtained in different studies [ 22 ]. However, these teachers not only need a technological “training”, but also to strengthen and cultivate membership in learning communities where teachers, researchers, technology experts, and policy makers can meet to discuss and reflect on the pedagogical possibilities of integrating technologies into the classroom. They need communities where, as pointed out in other works [ 31 ], common values and interests can be shared and their primary objective is the acquisition of knowledge, learning, skills, and competencies of their participants. 4. Digital Teaching Competence and Pedagogical Knowledge Leaving aside the differences found in the way of understanding the initial training of ECE teachers in technological competences, note that the digital competence of teachers is related to all those skills, attitudes, and knowledge required by teachers in a digitized world [32]. It is also related to the use of ICT from a didactic –pedagogical perspective in a professional educational context [31]. There are different institutions that define the indicators that describe the digital competence of teachers through proposals that establish models or frameworks of digital competence. In them, the competences that teachers must develop in the technological field are classified with different dimensions and descriptors. With the purpose of knowing how the student of the infant degree is perceived in digital competence before and after receiving training, this study uses the theoretical works of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the European Commission’s Joint Research Center (JRC). The ISTE has become one of the most important international benchmarks worldwide [ 33 ]. The ISTE stands out in establishing standards of technological competences and skills for teachers. The ISTE Standards for Educators aim to help teachers become digitally empowered learners [ 34 ]. The six categories or dimensions referred to are below. A. Creativity and innovation: creative thinking, knowledge construction, and development of innovative products and processes using ICT. B. Communication and collaboration: use of digital media and environments to communicate and work collaboratively, even at a distance, to support individual learning and contribute to the learning of others. C. Research and information management: use of digital tools to obtain, evaluate, and use information. D. Critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making: using critical thinking skills to plan and conduct research, manage projects, solve problems, and make informed decisions, using appropriate digital tools and resources. E. Digital citizenship: understanding of human, cultural, and social issues related to ICT and practicing legal and ethical behavior. F. Functioning and concepts of ICT: adequate understanding of the concepts, systems, and operation of ICT. At the end of 2017, the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu) [ 35 ] appears. It is the product of a series of congresses, workshops, debates, and deliberations with experts and professionals. At the same time, it is built after a bibliographic review and involves a synthesis of existing instruments at the local, national, European, and international levels [ 36 , 37 ]. The result assumes a consensus on the main areas and elements of digital teaching competence, following a progressive logic in each competence area [ 38 ]. It is a model of digital competence for trainers and its areas of competence are as follows. A. Professional commitment: focuses on teachers’ working environment. Teachers’ digital competence is expressed in their ability to use digital technologies not only to improve teaching, but also to interact professionally with peers, students, family, and different agents in the educational community. Sustainability 2020,12, 4782 5 of 17 B. Digital resources: related to the sourcing, creation, and distribution of digital resources. One of the key skills that any teacher must develop is to identify good educational resources. In addition, you must be able to modify, create, and share them to fit your goals, students, and teaching style. At the same time, you must know how to responsibly use and manage digital content, respecting copyright rules and protecting personal data. C. Digital pedagogy: the fundamental competence of the entire “DigCompEdu” framework is knowing how to design, plan, and implement the use of digital technologies at different stages of the teaching and learning process. In addition, a change in approaches and methodologies that are focused on students is advocated. D. Evaluation and feedback: linked to the use of digital tools and strategies in the evaluation and improvement of teaching–learning processes. Digital technologies can enhance existing assessment strategies and lead to new and better assessment methods. Furthermore, by analyzing the large amount of (digital) data available on individual student actions, teachers can offer more specific feedback and support. E. Empowering students: use of digital tools for student empowerment. One of the key strengths of digital technologies in education is their potential to promote the active participation of students in the learning process and their autonomy over it. F. Facilitate the digital competence of the students: on how to develop and facilitate the digital citizen competence (“DigComp”) of the students. Taking these competences into account, six levels or progressive management profiles were established, identifying the level of digital competence of a teacher as a newcomer (A1), explorer (A2), integrator (B1), expert (B2), leader (C1), and pioneer (C2). These profiles were used in this study to know the level of self-perceived competence of the students of the ECE university degree program at the University of Seville. In Table 1, these profiles are described according to the complexity of a task with ICT, teacher autonomy, and required cognitive domain. These frameworks serve to develop the model for analyzing the digital skills of university students [ 39 ]. It was configured into 6 dimensions and 44 indicators. Figure 1represents the broad categories corresponding to digital skills. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16 Figure 1. Digital competences of university student. Adapted from reference [38]. 5. Methodology It was decided to carry out this cross sectional study to determine if there was an evolution after the specific training intervention in and with technology for teachers (subject of “Information Technology and Communication Applied to Early Childhood Education”) with a duration of one semester, specifically October–January. 5.1. Objectives The main objectives of this research were  to discover the degree and type of self-perceived digital competence before and after taking the subject "Information and Communication Technologies Applied to Early Childhood Education" (O1);  to determine if there were statistically significant differences in the self-perception of digital competence of the students of the Degree in Early Childhood Education at the University of Seville, after receiving a technological training (O2); and  to show those profiles detected based on the perceived competence level (O3). The work proposed a pretest–posttest methodology through a descriptive cross sectional study. This design did not modify the variables under study, but explored their nature and behavior in the participants who were part of the study [40]. 5.2. Sample The sample was made up of the students who were in the 4th year of the Degree in Early Childhood Education at the University of Seville during academic years 2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2018/2019; there was a total of 535 students. The distribution was 184 from the 2016/2017 academic year, 242 from the 2017/2018 academic year, and 101 from the 2018/2019 academic year. For their selection, incidental or convenience criteria were chosen, according to their availability to answer the questionnaire [40]. Note that all groups, during the three academic years, received the same training by the same professor. Most of the participants were women (93%). Regarding their technological profile, almost all had a personal computer (98.9%) and mobile devices (99.6%). Internet access and connection was almost generalized (99.8%). Most connect to the internet from anywhere (78%). Only some did it from home (18%), or exclusively at the university (3%). Finally, all the participants used the Internet daily, with connections of more than 10 h a week (66%), between 5 and 10 h (31%), and 1 h or less (3%). Figure 1. Digital competences of university student. Adapted from reference [38]. Sustainability 2020,12, 4782 6 of 17 Table 1. Interpretation of European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu) framework competence levels. Profile Level Task Complexity Autonomy Cognitive Domain Newcomer A1 Simple task Need for guidance Remember Explorer A2 Well-defined routines and routine problems Personal autonomy Understand Integrator B1 Variety of tasks and problems Guide others Apply Expert B2 Most appropriate tasks to solve a problem Adaptive capacity in complex contexts Evaluate Leader C1 Solving complex problems with limited solutions Integration into professional practice Create Pioneer C2 Solving complex problems with a multiplicity of factors involved Proposal of new ideas and processes To question 5. Methodology It was decided to carry out this cross sectional study to determine if there was an evolution after the specific training intervention in and with technology for teachers (subject of “Information Technology and Communication Applied to Early Childhood Education”) with a duration of one semester, specifically October–January. 5.1. Objectives The main objectives of this research were  to discover the degree and type of self-perceived digital competence before and after taking the subject “Information and Communication Technologies Applied to Early Childhood Education” (O1);  to determine if there were statistically significant differences in the self-perception of digital competence of the students of the Degree in Early Childhood Education at the University of Seville, after receiving a technological training (O2); and to show those profiles detected based on the perceived competence level (O3). The work proposed a pretest–posttest methodology through a descriptive cross sectional study. This design did not modify the variables under study, but explored their nature and behavior in the participants who were part of the study [40]. 5.2. Sample The sample was made up of the students who were in the 4th year of the Degree in Early Childhood Education at the University of Seville during academic years 2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2018/2019; there was a total of 535 students. The distribution was 184 from the 2016/2017 academic year, 242 from the 2017/2018 academic year, and 101 from the 2018/2019 academic year. For their selection, incidental or convenience criteria were chosen, according to their availability to answer the questionnaire [ 40 ]. Note that all groups, during the three academic years, received the same training by the same professor. Most of the participants were women (93%). Regarding their technological profile, almost all had a personal computer (98.9%) and mobile devices (99.6%). Internet access and connection was almost generalized (99.8%). Most connect to the internet from anywhere (78%). Only some did it from home (18%), or exclusively at the university (3%). Finally, all the participants used the Internet daily, with connections of more than 10 h a week (66%), between 5 and 10 h (31%), and 1 h or less (3%). 5.3. The Instrument The “Questionnaire for the Study of the Digital Competence of the Student of Higher Education” or CDAES [ 39 ] is used. This validated and designed ad-hoc questionnaire, with 10-interval Likert-type scaling, includes the following sections. Sustainability 2020,12, 4782 7 of 17 1. Sociodemographic characteristics and use of technologies: participants were asked about their gender and questions related to their experience of Internet use, access device, and frequency of use. 2. Forty-four items with Likert scaling to assess students’ self-perception: they respond to six competency dimensions, as explained in previous paragraphs (Figure 1): A. Technological literacy: digital competence is knowing how to plan and implement the use of digital technologies in different contexts [41]. B. Search and treatment of information: related to the sourcing, creation, and distribution of digital resources. Citizens must be able to modify, create, and share them [42]. C. Critical thinking: analyze, understand, and evaluate to plan and conduct research, manage projects, and make informed decisions using appropriate digital tools and resources [43,44]. D. Communication and collaboration: digital competence is related to the ability to use digital technologies to interact with friends, coworkers, students, and family [ 45 , 46 ]. Furthermore, this communication through technology allows individual professional development and collective and continuous innovation in any type of organization [37]. E. Digital citizenship: related to knowing how to use and manage digital content responsibly, respecting copyright rules and protecting personal data [ 47 ]. In addition, any digital citizen is committed to their training throughout life [35]. F. Creativity and innovation: use of innovative digital tools to modify existing elements in order to improve them [ 35 ]. Innovation with ICT is related to the exploration and use of emerging technologies [48], simulations [49], and problem solving methodology [36,46]. Regarding the reliability of the questionnaire for the sample under study, internal consistency was obtained using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient as a whole and by dimensions. The results indicated a very high level of reliability ( α =0.975) globally [ 50 ]. In addition, the reliability that is obtained in the dimensions also has a high level: technological literacy ( α =0.910), information search and treatment ( α=0.879 ), critical thinking ( α =0.879), communication and collaboration ( α =0.929), digital citizenship ( α =0.888), and creativity and innovation ( α =0.941). These results coincide with those carried out in previous validation studies of the instrument [39]. 5.4. Procedure and Data Analysis The questionnaire was done in a digital format, through the “Google Forms” platform. Data collection was carried out in the subject at the beginning and at the end of the semester in which it took place (first semester, that is, from September to February, approximately). The aims of the study were explained by the responsible teacher, and the collaboration of the students was requested. At all times, the anonymity of the participants was assured. Descriptive analyses based on central tendency and dispersion were performed (O1, O3). In addition, contrast statistics were applied to make a comparison of the scores obtained (O2, O3). Specifically, Mann–Whitney U test and Cohen’s d effect size were used to assess the magnitude of the differences between the pretest and posttest (O2). The Kruskal–Wallis H test was also applied to compare the proposed competency profiles that were the object of study (O3). In parallel, it was verified that data was not normally distributed through the study of asymmetry and kurtosis. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test confirmed this check, with significance (p-value) equal to 0.000 for all items (non-normal distribution). The data obtained were analyzed with SPSS software (v.23). 6. Results Following the objectives of the study set out, we offer those data that show the degree and type of self-perceived digital competence before and after completing the subject "Information and Communication Technologies Applied to Early Childhood Education" (O1). Sustainability 2020,12, 4782 8 of 17 Data indicate that students had a medium-high perception of their digital skills in all the areas that were included in the study, although the areas of communication and collaboration ( ¯ x =6.04; σ=7.62 ) and critical thinking ( ¯ x =6.22; σ =1.79) received the lowest scores. Digital citizenship ( ¯ x=7.62 ; σ=1.67 ) and search and treatment of information ( ¯ x =7.00; σ =1.54) were the areas with the highest scores. In relation to the data obtained after completing the subject (posttest), an increase was observed in all areas of competence. In other words, the students’ self-perception improved, leaving all of them above 7 points. Compared to the pretest, Digital citizenship was the area that increased to a lesser extent, with a 0.52 point difference. At the same time, the area of communication and collaboration had the highest increase compared to the pretest, with a 0.98 point difference. Figure 2visually shows the scores obtained for the pretest and posttest, as well as the growth in self-assessment. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16 Following the objectives of the study set out, we offer those data that show the degree and type of self-perceived digital competence before and after completing the subject "Information and Communication Technologies Applied to Early Childhood Education" (O1). Data indicate that students had a medium-high perception of their digital skills in all the areas that were included in the study, although the areas of communication and collaboration (x = 6.04; σ = 7.62) and critical thinking (x = 6.22; σ = 1.79) received the lowest scores. Digital citizenship (x = 7.62; σ = 1.67) and search and treatment of information (x = 7.00; σ = 1.54) were the areas with the highest scores. In relation to the data obtained after completing the subject (posttest), an increase was observed in all areas of competence. In other words, the students' self-perception improved, leaving all of them above 7 points. Compared to the pretest, Digital citizenship was the area that increased to a lesser extent, with a 0.52 point difference. At the same time, the area of communication and collaboration had the highest increase compared to the pretest, with a 0.98 point difference. Figure 2 visually shows the scores obtained for the pretest and posttest, as well as the growth in selfassessment. Figure 2. Self-perception of digital competence by dimensions. Table 2 shows the data obtained from the self-perception of digital competence before and after taking the ICT subject applied to early childhood education, broken down by each academic year that was studied. Table 2. Self-perception of digital competence by dimensions and academic year. Year Type Technological Literacy Search and Treatment of Information Critical Thinking Communication and Collaboration Digital Citizenship Creativity and Innovation Total x σ x σ x σ x σ x σ x σ x σ Global Posttest 7.56 1.99 7.88 1.60 7.10 2.25 7.02 2.31 8.14 1.75 7.34 2.03 7.51 1.78 Pretest 6.98 1.89 7.00 1.54 6.22 1.79 6.04 2.26 7.62 1.67 6.5 1.96 6.73 1.49 2016– 2017 Pretest 7.16 1.55 7.05 1.52 6.65 1.38 6.21 1.88 7.67 1.46 6.82 1.91 6.93 1.26 Posttest 8.06 1.50 8.76 1.26 8.35 1.28 8.00 1.60 8.71 1.61 8.35 1.16 8.37 1.29 2017– 2018 Pretest 6.59 2.35 7.10 1.46 5.75 2.19 5.82 2.85 7.72 1.83 6.16 1.82 6.52 1.70 Posttest 7.24 2.08 7.60 1.64 6.60 2.41 6.62 2.49 7.93 1.86 7.02 2.16 7.17 1.87 2018– 2019 Pretest 6.95 2.11 6.68 1.67 5.52 1.98 5.82 2.39 7.31 2.04 5.96 2.16 6.37 1.73 Posttest 8.30 1.72 8.20 1.42 7.92 1.56 7.70 1.72 8.46 1.31 7.75 1.74 8.06 1.39 As can be seen, there were no major differences from the global data. The areas of communication and collaboration, along with critical thinking, received the lowest score. At the same time, the area of digital citizenship was the most valued during the three academic years. During the academic year 2018/2019, greater growth was observed in each area. Even so, there were no major Figure 2. Self-perception of digital competence by dimensions. Table 2shows the data obtained from the self-perception of digital competence before and after taking the ICT subject applied to early childhood education, broken down by each academic year that was studied. As can be seen, there were no major differences from the global data. The areas of communication and collaboration, along with critical thinking, received the lowest score. At the same time, the area of digital citizenship was the most valued during the three academic years. During the academic year 2018/2019, greater growth was observed in each area. Even so, there were no major differences compared to the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 courses. These data were expanded and nuanced in the results obtained in the contrast tests. To answer whether there were statistically significantchanges between the students’ self-perception of digital competences before and after taking the ICT subject (pretest–posttest), as well as to discover if there were significant differences taking the academic year (O2) as a contrast variable, Mann–Whitney U non-parametric contrast tests were applied with Cohen’s d calculation for more than two related samples (Table 3) and Kruskal–Wallis (Table 4). According to the data obtained, the training received by students (ICT) was an important element to improve self-perception of their digital skills. All the areas of competence listed had a significance level of less than 0.05; we can confirm with a confidence level of 99% that there were statistically significant changes between before and after completing the subject. Considering the value of d, the magnitude of these differences can be considered moderate. If Table 4is observed, where the average ranges are shown, the changes produced always meant an improvement in the students’ self-perception; that is, the students perceived that they improved in all the areas that make up digital competence. Sustainability 2020,12, 4782 9 of 17 Table 2. Self-perception of digital competence by dimensions and academic year. Year Type Technological Literacy Search and Treatment of Information Critical Thinking Communication and Collaboration Digital Citizenship Creativity and Innovation Total ¯ xσ¯ xσ¯ xσ¯ xσ¯ xσ¯ xσ¯ xσ Global Posttest 7.56 1.99 7.88 1.60 7.10 2.25 7.02 2.31 8.14 1.75 7.34 2.03 7.51 1.78 Pretest 6.98 1.89 7.00 1.54 6.22 1.79 6.04 2.26 7.62 1.67 6.5 1.96 6.73 1.49 2016–2017 Pretest 7.16 1.55 7.05 1.52 6.65 1.38 6.21 1.88 7.67 1.46 6.82 1.91 6.93 1.26 Posttest 8.06 1.50 8.76 1.26 8.35 1.28 8.00 1.60 8.71 1.61 8.35 1.16 8.37 1.29 2017–2018 Pretest 6.59 2.35 7.10 1.46 5.75 2.19 5.82 2.85 7.72 1.83 6.16 1.82 6.52 1.70 Posttest 7.24 2.08 7.60 1.64 6.60 2.41 6.62 2.49 7.93 1.86 7.02 2.16 7.17 1.87 2018–2019 Pretest 6.95 2.11 6.68 1.67 5.52 1.98 5.82 2.39 7.31 2.04 5.96 2.16 6.37 1.73 Posttest 8.30 1.72 8.20 1.42 7.92 1.56 7.70 1.72 8.46 1.31 7.75 1.74 8.06 1.39 Table 3. Mann–Whitney U test with pretest–posttest grouping variable. Technological Literacy Search and Treatment of Information Critical Thinking Communication and Collaboration Digital Citizenship Creativity and Innovation Total U Mann–Whitney 27,979.000 23,939.500 24,533.500 25,459.000 27,723.500 26,088.000 24,550.500 D Cohen 0.299 0.560 0.433 0.429 0.304 0.421 0.316 Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sustainability 2020,12, 4782 16 of 17 37. Ghomi, M.; Redecker, C. Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu): Development and Evaluation of a Self-assessment Instrument for Teachers’ Digital Competence. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 2–4 May 2019; pp. 541–548; ISBN 978-989-758-367-4. [CrossRef] 38. Gonz á lez, V.; Rom á n, M.; Prendes, M. Formaci ó n en competencias digitales para estudiantes universitarios basada en el modelo DigComp. Edutec. Revista Electr ó nica De Tecnolog í a Educativa 2018 ,65, 1–15. [CrossRef] 39. Guti é rrez-Castillo, J.; Cabero-Almenara, J.; Estrada-Vidal, L. Diseño y validaci ó n de un instrumento de evaluación de la competencia digital del estudiante universitario. Rev. Espac. 2017,38, 1–27. 40. Hern á ndez-Sampieri, R.; Fern á ndez-Collado, C.; Baptista-Lucio, P. Metodolog í a de la investigaci ó n; McGraw-Hill Education: Madrid, Spain, 2014. 41. Crompton, H.; Burke,D. The use of mobile learning in higher education: A systematic review. Comput. Educ. 2018 . [CrossRef] 42. Beneyto-Seoane, M.; Collet-Sab é , J. An á lisis de la actual formaci ó n docente en competencias TIC. Por una nueva perspectiva basada en las competencias, las experiencias y los conocimientos previos de los docentes. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado 2018,22, 1–20. [CrossRef] 43. Lopez, L.; Aguaded, M. Teaching Media Literacy in Colleges of Education and Communication. Comunicar 2015,22, 187–195. [CrossRef] 44. Siddiq, F.; Gochyyev, P.; Wilson, M. Learning in Digital Networks - ICT literacy: A novel assessment of students’ 21st century skills. Comput. Educ. 2017,109. [CrossRef] 45. Fern á ndez M á rquez, E.; Leiva, J.; Meneses, E. Competencias digitales en docentes de Educaci ó n Superior. Revista Digital de Investigación en Docencia Universitaria 2018,12. [CrossRef] 46. Ram í rez-Garc í a, A.; Gonz á lez-Fern á ndez, N.; Salcines, I. Competencias parentales positivas y Smartphones. Diagnóstico en el contexto familiar. Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación2018,9. [CrossRef] 47. Carretero, S.; Vuorikari, R.; Punie, Y. DigComp 2.1. The digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use.; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2017. [CrossRef] 48. Cabero-Almenara, J.; Barroso-Osuna, J.; Palacios-Rodr í guez, A.; Llorente-Cejudo, C. Marcos de Competencias Digitales para docentes universitarios: Su evaluaci ó n a trav é s del coeficiente competencia experta. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación Del Profesorado. 2020,23. [CrossRef] 49. G é rtrudix, M.; G é rtrudix Barrio, F. Aprender jugando. Mundos inmersivos abiertos como espacios de aprendizaje de los y las jóvenes. Revista de estudios de Juventud 2013,101, 123–137. 50. Bisquerra, R. Metodología de la Investigación Educativa; La Muralla: Madrid, Spain, 2004. 51. Angeli, C.; Valanides, N. Preservice teachers as ICT designers: An instructional design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2005,21, 292–302. [CrossRef] 52. Harris, J.; Mishra, P.; Koehler, M. Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2009 ,41, 393–416. [CrossRef] 53. Mishra, P.; Koehler, M.J.; Bragg, W.H. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge The advent of digital technology has dramatically changed routines and practices in most arenas of human work. Advocates of technology in education often envisage similar dramatic changes in the process of teaching. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2006,108, 1017–1054. 54. Losada, D.; Valverde, J.; Correa, J.M. La tecnolog í a educativa en la universidad p ú blica española. Pixel-Bit - Revista de Medios y Educación2012,41, 133–148. 55. De la Herrán, A. Formación y transversalidad universitarias. Tendencias Pedagógicas 2006,10, 223. 56. Gudmundsdottir, G.B.; Loftsgarden, M.; Ottestad, G. Nyutdannede Lærere: Profesjonsfaglig Digital Kompetanse og Erfaringer Med IKT i Lærerutdanningen; Senter for IKT i Utdanningen: Oslo, Norway, 2014. 57. Haugerud, T. Student Teachers Learning to Teach: The Mastery and Appropriation of Digital Technology. Nord. J. Digit. Lit. 2011,4, 226–239. 58. Instefjord, E.J.; Munthe, E. Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration of professional digital competence in teacher education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2017,67, 37–45. [CrossRef] 59. Tømte, C.; Enochsson, A.-B.; Buskqvist,U.; Kårstein,A. Educatingonlinestudentteacherstomaster professional digital competence: The TPACK-framework goes online. Comput. Educ. 2015,84, 26–35. [CrossRef] 60. L á zaro, J.; Usart, M.; Gisbert, M. Assessing teacher digital competence: The construction of an instrument for measuring the knowledge of pre-service teachers. J. New Approaches Educ. Res. 2019,8, 73–78. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020,12, 4782 17 of 17 61. Ramírez García, A.; Gutiérrez-Arenas, M.P.; Corpas Reina, M. Valoración por Parte del Alumnado del Grado de Maestro en Educaci ó n Infantil de las Competencias que se les Exige Para Convertirse en Profesionales de la Educaci ó n; Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Rectorado UCLM: Calle Altagracia, Spain, 2012. 62. Gir ó n, V.; C ó zar-Guti é rrez, R.; Gonz á lez-Calero, J.A. An á lisis de la autopercepci ó n sobre el nivel de competencia digital docente en la formaci ó n inicial de maestros/as. Revista Electr ó nica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado 2019,22, 193–218. [CrossRef] 63. Herv á s, C.; L ó pez, E.; Real, S.; Fern á ndez, E. Tecnofobia: Competencias, actitudes y formaci ó n del alumnado del Grado en Educación Infantil. IJERI Int. J. Educ. Res. Innov. 2016,6, 83–94. 64. Prendes, P.; Castañeda, L.; Guti é rrez, I. Competencias para el uso de TIC de los futuros maestros. Comunicar 2010,18, 175–182. 65. Pozo-S á nchez, S.; L ó pez-Belmonte, J.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.J.; Hinojo-Lucena, F.J. Flipped learning y competencia digital: Una conexi ó n docente necesaria para su desarrollo en la educaci ó n actual. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria De Formación del Profesorado 2020,23, 127–141. [CrossRef] © 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).