Online conferences and teachers’ digital competence: Insights from a DigCompEdu study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36097/rsan.v1i65.3737Keywords:
Digital competence, Online conferences, DigCompEdu, Higher education, Teaching innovationAbstract
This study examines the role of online conference participation in enhancing university teachers’ digital competence and its impact on teaching innovation and professional development. Guided by the DigCompEdu framework, the study investigates the relationships among conference engagement, institutional support, self-efficacy, digital competence, teaching innovation, and perceived professional impact. A quantitative cross-sectional design was employed with 500 in-service university teachers from public and private universities in Pakistan. Data was collected using a structured survey instrument and analyzed through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Multi-group SEM analysis was also conducted to examine differences between public and private universities. The results indicate that conference engagement (β = .29, p < .001), institutional support (β = .24, p < .001), and self-efficacy (β = .38, p < .001) significantly predict digital competence. In turn, digital competence strongly predicts teaching innovation (β = .71, p < .001) and perceived professional impact (β = .48, p < .001). Bootstrapping analysis further confirmed a significant indirect effect of conference engagement on professional impact through digital competence (β = .14, p < .001). The findings highlight the importance of institutional support and professional learning ecosystems in strengthening faculty digital competence and fostering sustainable digital transformation in universities.
Downloads
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (Vol. 11). Freeman.
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
Bond, M., Marín, V. I., Dolch, C., Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Digital transformation in German higher education: Student and teacher perceptions and usage of digital media. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0130-1
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., Magni, P., & Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Etikan, I., & Bala, K. (2017). Sampling and sampling methods. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 5(6), 00149. https://doi.org/10.15406/bbij.2017.05.00149
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/10.2307/3151312
Fraser, H., Soanes, K., Jones, S. A., Jones, C. S., & Malishev, M. (2017). The value of virtual conferencing for ecology and conservation. Conservation Biology, 31(3), 540–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12837
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Hair Jr, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. In Multivariate data analysis (pp. 785-785).
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004702813_021
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Niner, H. J., & Wassermann, S. N. (2021). Better for whom? Leveling the injustices of international conferences by moving online. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 638025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.638025
Rahmawati, S., Abdullah, A. G., & Widiaty, I. (2024). Teachers’ digital literacy overview in secondary school. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(1), 597-606. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i1.25747
Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2017). Digital competence of educators. Edited by Yves Punie.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701
Selwyn, N. (2021). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Skiles, M., Yang, E., Reshef, O., Muñoz, D. R., Cintron, D., Lind, M. L., ... & Kumar, M. (2022). Conference demographics and footprint changed by virtual platforms. Nature Sustainability, 5(2), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00823-2
Trust, T., & Whalen, J. (2020). Should teachers be trained in emergency remote teaching? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 189–199.
Trust, T., Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016). “Together we are better”: Professional learning networks for teachers. Computers & Education, 102, 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.007
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.001
Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. A&C Black.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Shahid Rafiq, Ayesha Afzal, Fariha Gul
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
