Competencia digital docente autopercibida en el profesorado universitario: un análisis de género en universidades colombianas acreditadas
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54104/papeles.v19n37.2424Palabras clave:
Competencia digital, educación superior, desarrollo profesional, tecnología educativa, géneroResumen
Introducción: La Competencia Digital Docente (CDD) se ha reconocido cada vez más como un componente de la calidad educativa en contextos universitarios digitalizados. Sin embargo, la evidencia sobre los factores asociados con su desarrollo y autopercepción, particularmente en relación con el género, sigue siendo limitada en América Latina. Este estudio examina las diferencias de género en la autopercepción de la CDD entre docentes de universidades colombianas con Acreditación de Alta Calidad, así como si dichas diferencias varían según la edad, la experiencia docente y el tipo de institución. Método: Se empleó un diseño transversal con 765 docentes que completaron el instrumento SELFIE for Teachers, alineado con el marco DigCompEdu. Se aplicaron pruebas t para muestras independientes con el fin de examinar diferencias de género en la CDD global y en seis áreas competenciales. Asimismo, se emplearon Modelos Lineales Generales factoriales para evaluar si las diferencias de género variaban según variables contextuales y profesionales. Resultados: El estudio encontró un patrón general de paridad de género en la autopercepción de la CDD. No se observaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la puntuación global ni en cinco de las seis áreas de DigCompEdu, y los tamaños del efecto observados fueron triviales. La única diferencia destacable fue una pequeña ventaja de las mujeres en Facilitación de la Competencia Digital del Estudiantado (d = −0.15), concentrada entre docentes con menor experiencia. El tipo de institución mostró asociaciones modestas con los niveles de CDD, lo que sugiere que el contexto institucional puede ser relevante para comprender la variación en la autopercepción de la CDD. Conclusiones:Estos hallazgos cuestionan los supuestos de brechas de género inherentes en la CDD. Dentro del contexto universitario acreditado analizado, el género mostró una asociación mínima con la autopercepción de la CDD. Las estrategias de desarrollo profesoral deberían priorizar la etapa de la carrera académica y las condiciones institucionales por encima de los enfoques basados en género, considerando también las diferencias estructurales entre instituciones públicas y privadas.
Descargas
Referencias
Adewale, S. (2025). Exploring ChatGPT usage amongst female academics and researchers in the academia. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt-01-2024-0012
Alhashem, F., Agha, N., & Mohammad, A. (2022). Required competencies for e-learning among science and mathematics supervisors: Post-pandemic features of education. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 39(3), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt-07-2021-0108
Ancheta-Arrabal, A., Pulido-Montes, C., & Carvajal-Mardones, V. (2021). Gender digital divide and education in Latin America: A literature review. Education Sciences, 11(12), 804. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120804
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European digital competence framework for educators (DigCompEdu). European Journal of Education, 54(3), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12345
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006
Consejo Nacional de Acreditación. (2019a). Acreditación en alta calidad. https://www.cna.gov.co/portal/Modelo-de-Acreditacion/Acreditacion-en-Alta-Calidad/
Consejo Nacional de Acreditación. (2019b). Informe de gestión 2019. https://www.cna.gov.co/1779/articles-400917_Informe_2019.pdf
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). Sage.
Dahabiyeh, L., Najjar, M. S., & Wang, G. (2022). Online teaching during COVID-19 crisis: The role of technostress and emotional dissonance on online teaching exhaustion and teaching staff productivity. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 39(2), 97-121 https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt-09-2021-0147
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers’ professional learning and development: Sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980701450746
Economou, A. (2023). SELFIEforTEACHERS: Designing and developing a self-reflection tool for teachers’ digital competence. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/561258
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC.
European Commission. (2019). She figures 2018. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/936
Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (6th ed.). Sage.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Guillén-Gámez, F. D., Mayorga-Fernández, M. J., & Contreras-Rosado, J. A. (2021). Incidence of gender in the digital competence of higher education teachers in research work: Analysis with descriptive and comparative methods. Education Sciences, 11(3), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030098
Hayes, A. F., & Cai, L. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192961
Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146818909100107
Inamorato dos Santos, A., Chinkes, E., Carvalho, M. A. G., Solórzano, C. M. V., & Marroni, L. S. (2023). The digital competence of academics in higher education: Is the glass half empty or half full? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00376-0
Sabzalieva, E., Chacón, E., Estrela Pereira, A., Valentini, A., Gamarra Caballero, L., & Abdrasheva, D. (2024). Transforming the digital landscape of higher education in Latin America and the Caribbean. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000388361
Järvinen, M., & Mik-Meyer, N. (2025). Giving and receiving: Gendered service work in academia. Current Sociology, 73(3), 302-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921231224754
Long, J. S., & Ervin, L. H. (2000). Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. The American Statistician, 54(3), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2000.10474549
Looi, K. H. (2022). Overcoming challenges to make e-learning a panacea for present and future crises. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 39(3), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt-10-2021-0157
Lustosa Rosario, A. C., Yaacov, B. B., Franco Segura, C., Arias Ortiz, E., Heredero, E., Botero, J., Brothers, P., Payva, T., & Spies, M. (2021). Higher education digital transformation in Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter-American Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.18235/0003829
Melo, E., Llopis, J., Gascó, J. & González, R. (2020). Integration of ICT into the higher education process: The case of Colombia. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 30(1), 58–67.
Mercader, C., & Duran-Bellonch, M. (2021). Female higher education teachers use digital technologies more and better than they think. Digital Education Review, 40, 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2021.40.172-184
Mhlongo, S., Mbatha, K., Ramatsetse, B., & Dlamini, R. (2023). Challenges, opportunities, and prospects of adopting and using smart digital technologies in learning environments: An iterative review. Heliyon, 9(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16348
Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857
Ministerio de Educación Nacional (2023). Perfiles de las instituciones de educación superior. https://snies.mineducacion.gov.co/portal/Informes-e-indicadores/Perfiles-de-las-Instituciones-de-Educacion-Superior
Muñiz, J., Elosua, P., & Hambleton, R. (2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: segunda edición. Psicothema, 25(2), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.24
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
OECD. (2021). OECD digital education outlook 2021: Pushing the frontiers with artificial intelligence, blockchain and robots.. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/589b283f-en
Pettersson, F., Siljebo, J., Wolming, S., & Ferry, M. (2024). A validated questionnaire for measuring digitalization as sociocultural change in educational contexts. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 41(4), 359-370. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt-08-2023-0149
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770
Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM methods for suboptimal data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315
Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001
Singh, S., Rahul, K., Paliwal, M. Wani, I. A., & Suri, S. (2025). Gendering the digital divide: A systematic review of women’s digital inclusion challenges and emerging research directions. Digital Transformation and Society, 4(4), 503–531. https://doi.org/10.1108/dts-04-2025-0083
Sistema Nacional de Información para la Educación Superior en Colombia [SNIES]. (2024). Consulta de instituciones. https://hecaa.mineducacion.gov.co/consultaspublicas/ies
Staudt, B., & He, D. (2024). Educators’ invisible labour: A systematic review. Review of Education, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3473
Sümer, S., & Eslen‐Ziya, H. (2023). Academic women’s voices on gendered divisions of work and care: “Working till I drop … then dropping”. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 30(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505068221136494
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008
Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Prestridge, S., & Consuegra, E. (2018). A multilevel analysis of what matters in the training of pre-service teachers’ ICT competencies. Computers & Education, 122, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.002
Tungpantong, C., Nilsook, P., & Wannapiroon, P. (2022). Factors influencing digital transformation adoption among higher education institutions during digital disruption. Higher Education Studies, 12(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v12n2p9
UNESCO & JET Education Services. (2022). Innovative use of technology in education: Winning projects of UNESCO’s King Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa Prize. UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385723
United Nations. (2023). The sustainable development goals report: Special edition 2023. https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2023_0.pdf
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020). The digital divide: Its processes, consequences, and policy (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
Vehovar, V., Toepoel, V., & Steinmetz, S. (2016). Non-probability sampling. In C. Wolf, D. Joye, T. W. Smith, & Y.-C. Fu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of survey methodology (pp. 329–345). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957893.n22
Wajcman, J. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Polity Press.
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press.
Wöbbekind, L., Weihe, J., Bóte-Vericad, J.-J., & Mandl, T. (2025). Experiences with online teaching during COVID-19 in Latin America: Digital divide, digital literacy, and lessons learned. Education for Information, 41(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/01678329251340465
Descargas
Publicado
Metrics
-
Resumen 0
-
PDF 0
Número
Sección
Categorías
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Diego Fernando Ávila Clavijo, Cristina Mercader Juan
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Portal de Ciencia Abierta