Integration of Digital Competences into a Teacher Education
Program: A Sensitive Approach
Wolfgang Müller
a
, Robert Grassinger
b
, Stefanie Schnebel, Jörg Stratmann, Holger Weitzel
c
,
Alexander Aumann
d
, Gerda Bernhard
e
, Marcus Gaidetzka
f
, Leonie Heiberger
g
, Ingo Kreyer,
Christian Schmidt, Pascal Uhl
h
, Marion Susanne Visotschnig
i
and Jennifer Widmann
j
University of Education Weingarten, Kirchplatz 2, Weingarten, Germany
Keywords: Teacher Education, Digital Competence Framework, Project-based Learning, Learning Analytics, Change
Management.
Abstract: Future teachers need sound digital competences in order to be able to identify and use the potential of digital
technologies for teaching. In the TegoDi project, we are developing and implementing a programme to teach
the necessary competences for all teacher education courses at our university. The concept of TegoDi is based
on a media literacy competence model adopted from international reference frameworks such as
DigCompEdu, TPACK and digi.kompP. The challenge of introducing the programme across the university is
met by a change management approach that is participatory and implemented through change agents. The
roll-out of the teacher education programme will be further complemented by support structures for students
and teachers. Support structures for students draw on learning analytics to realise personalized feedback.
Project effectiveness, acceptance and usability of measures as well as the overall impact of the TEgoDi project
will be evaluated repeatedly involving both formative and summative approaches.
1 INTRODUCTION
The need for digitalisation at schools and appropriate
teacher education with regard to digital competences
has been brought up in public discussions in the last
years on a regular basis (e.g., KMK, 2020). The recent
COVID-19 pandemic with its effects on schooling has
made the deficits in these areas most visible.
According to the Teaching and Learning International
Survey (TALIS), only 53 percent of interviewed
teachers in 2018 reported a frequent use of computer
and information technologies in their teaching
practice and 18 percent call for better professional
development in the use of information technologies
(Schleicher, 2020). McGarr and McDonagh (2019)
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6674-0605
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3769-1047
c
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6525-4341
d
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4746-5035
e
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2622-0258
f
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8882-6880
g
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3899-0962
h
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4501-0424
i
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6831-2196
j
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7946-7871
argue that there is a special requirement to prepare
tomorrow's teachers for the fast-paced change of
digital teaching and learning tools.
In this paper we present a comprehensive
approach to the sensitive modification of a teacher
education program, with mandatory curricular
elements related to digital skills and competences
required by teachers and the implementation of
different support structures. In the center of this
approach called Teacher Education goes Digital
(TEgoDi) are digital media related projects, which
have the power to initiate a process of digital
transformation for the whole university. In a first
step, we will disclose related theoretical and
empirical work, which inspired our approach. In a
232
Müller, W., Grassinger, R., Schnebel, S., Stratmann, J., Weitzel, H., Aumann, A., Bernhard, G., Gaidetzka, M., Heiberger, L., Kreyer, I., Schmidt, C., Uhl, P., Visotschnig, M. and Widmann, J.
Integration of Digital Competences into a Teacher Education Program: A Sensitive Approach.
DOI: 10.5220/0010527202320242
In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2021) - Volume 1, pages 232-242
ISBN: 978-989-758-502-9
Copyright
c
2021 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
second step, we describe the TEgoDi approach,
providing a general overview and explanations of
important elements. Finally, we summarize and
introduce further challenges, based on first
experiences with the presented approach.
2 RELATED WORK
The question of how prospective teachers can be
better prepared to use digital technologies effectively
and productively in their classrooms has been
discussed for some time. While early concepts
focused on isolated ICT training, more holistic and
integrated approaches are being proposed today (see
Falloon, 2020). Following this, we designed a project-
based approach, which serves the needs of teacher
education and keeps the challenges of implementation
in teacher education programs in mind. Digital
competences of prospective teachers are fostered by a
media development project and a media based
teaching project allowing students to develop their
media-related competencies. Different support
structures are implemented encompassing regular
feedback based on learning analytics and tutoring.
When talking about media-related competence,
terms like digital literacy, media literacy or digital
competence are being used. However, these terms are
still not clearly defined and often used synonymously
(Godhe, 2019). While digital literacy is accused of
focusing too strongly on fostering technological
skills, the concept of competence is broader and also
includes diverse knowledge, capabilities and
dispositions needed by future teachers (Falloon,
2020). Thus, our approach for teacher education is
mainly based on frameworks for digital competence,
as for example the TPACK-model (Mishra &
Koheler, 2006), the European Digital Competence
Framework 2.1 (DigComp, Carretero et al., 2017), the
UNESCO Global Framework on Digital Literacy
Skills (Law et. al., 2018) and the European
Framework for Teachers' Digital Literacy
DigCompEdu. The latter incorporates a cross-context
reference framework which has been tested
internationally at all levels of education from primary
to higher education and establishes consistent
European standards (Cabero-Almanara et al., 2020;
Ghomi & Redecker, 2019; Redecker, 2017). In
addition, a number of national frameworks
encompassing digital competences of teachers,
typically with a more restricted scope, such as the
Norwegian digital Bildung model (Krumsvik &
Jones, 2013), which refers primarily to teaching staff
in upper secondary schools encourage our
competence model. Digi.kompP (Brandhofer &
Wiesner, 2018) also falls into this category,
providing a detailed competence grid, allowing an
easier adoption in curricula and instructional design.
During their competence development students
receive regular feedback based on online self-
assessments and learning analytics. Our approach is
inspired by the LASSI (Broos et al., 2017b) and
LADA (Gutiérrez et al., 2018) dashboards. The first
one provides targeted feedback to students with the
close involvement of tutors. In contrast, the
dashboard LISSA (Millecamp et al., 2018), maps the
learning process on the university’s learning
management system (LMS).
Further, our tutoring concept highly relies on
known success factors, like pre-qualification of the
learning facilitators (e.g., Bierema & Merriam, 2002;
Shrestha et al., 2009). Tutors also work with students'
feedback based on students’ online self-assessments
and learning analytics. Beyond this, students will also
be enabled to help each other in joint planning of
media-based teaching-learning settings. As Schnebel
and Kreis (2014) indicate, this co-working process is
very useful.
Since digitalisation is a driver of change and does
not spare higher education institutions, we rely on a
professional change management embedded into our
project. Taking into account the organisational
characteristics of higher education systems according
to Weick (1976) and Mintzberg (1983), the TEgoDi
concept refers to the model of collective and
participatory change readiness according to Graf-
Schlattmann et al. (2020). Current findings
concerning the importance of participation and self-
determination (e.g., Akins et al., 2019; Falloon,
2020) are considered in the implementation process.
Examples are the use of change agents and e-learning
experts at faculty level, or the creation of internal
boards allowing different stakeholders of the
university to participate in diverse ways.
Finally, ongoing evaluation is considered a
cornerstone for designing and implementing
professional development approaches for teachers
(Hobbs and Marks, 2020). So the effect of TEgoDi
will be evaluated on two levels: on student level, i.e.
the development of digital competences, and on the
level of the change management process. On both
levels the evaluation incorporates a comprehensive
mixed-methods evaluation approach incorporating
formative and summative elements (Maderick et al.,
2016; Pettersson, 2018).
Integration of Digital Competences into a Teacher Education Program: A Sensitive Approach
233
Figure 1: The TEgoDi concept.
3 CONCEPT
Fundamental elements and specifics of our concept
are presented in more detail in the following section.
First, the overall approach of the competence model
of TEgoDi will be introduced, followed by sections
on self-guided learning and support structures.
Finally, the evaluation concept and the change
management process will be presented.
3.1 Overall Approach
Many approaches to professional development for
teachers follow a one-size-fits-all concept to
technology integration that is intended to fit various
subjects and skill areas. In practice, this leads to only
partially satisfactory media education. It is much more
important to understand the interaction of components
in order to adequately prepare and rethink teaching
and learning (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). At the end of
their studies many students do not feel sufficiently and
adequately prepared for the effective use of digital
media in their own teaching (Kaplon-Schilis &
Lyublinskaya, 2019). This circumstance will be
addressed by the present approach.
The core of TEgoDi is to supplement teacher
education curricula with compulsory additional
coursework elements in terms of both, a media-based
teaching project and a media development project
(see figure 1). This project-oriented approach is
based on two theories. The first one is situated
learning (Lave & Wenger, 2008), which describes
learning as a socially active process. The second is
authentic learning (Herrington & Herrington, 2006),
learning taking place in scenarios that are as realistic
as possible or case-oriented. Based on the latter,
teacher students may implement the projects within a
university course, school internships, or in service
learning scenarios. Corresponding project-based
approaches did prove their effectiveness in various
scenarios for teaching media competence (e.g.,
Banister et al., 2010) and TPACK (e.g., Papanikolaou
et al., 2017).
In their project work, teacher students become
practically acquainted with various framework
models of media didactics (Kerres, 2013), as well as
with various instructional design models of the first
and second generation (Niegemann, 2008; Reigeluth
& Carr-Chellman, 2009), enabling them to design
and analyse media-supported learning situations.
Further, they document their reflections and their
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
234
development of media (subject) didactic competences
in an e-portfolio (Stratmann et al., 2009) based on the
competence grid developed in the project (Stratmann
& Müller, 2018).
First, the media-based teaching project addresses
practical experiences in teaching with media and
designing instructional embeddings, also fostering
subject-specific competences and TPACK. Then,
within the media development project, teacher
students cooperatively design a media-based learning
offer. This way they deal with corresponding
approaches of instructional design or media didactic
models as well as with subject-related content. An
important element of TEgoDi is the certificate that
will be issued to the students. This will document and
attest the additional media-related competence they
have achieved.
In order to better understand the needs of learners
and lecturers, to design transparently the learning
processes around the two media projects, and to
orchestrate the different measures of TEgoDi in this
context, we applied a scenario-based design approach
and developed customer journey maps. Figure 2
shows an example of a student's journey through their
studies, emphasizing the media projects and involved
TEgoDi elements. Nine main steps were defined, that
vary slightly depending on the selected project type.
After check-in and orientation phase (1) students are
informed about options and requirements. This
supports their selection of project type (2) (teaching
or development project). Self-Assessment (3)
provides orientation about media competences and
appropriate learning material to acquire necessary
skills (4). Content and learning objects are defined
together with lecturers, resulting in a project concept
(5). Teaching materials and tools are gathered or
produced (6). Project design is tested involving the
target group (7), feedback is provided by tutors and
lecturers (8). Final evaluation (9) is conducted using
e-portfolio method. A certificate confirms achieved
skills and gained experience.
3.2 Digital Competences for Teachers
TEgoDi concept is based on a media literacy
competence model adopted from international
reference frameworks such as DigComEdu, TPACK,
and digi.kompP. The TEgoDi model supports students
in assessing the development of their competences. In
addition, it serves to integrate ICT-related content
systematically into the structure of the study
programme and provides a reference framework for
the development of an automated feedback system for
students based on learning analytics.
During the course of the three-year project, the
TEgoDi competence model will be further developed
in iterative cycles. Also, it will be progressively
operationalised by working out an interdisciplinary
competence grid, which will be evaluated and
concretized iteratively.
Figure 2: TEgoDi procedure was modelled using the customer journey method.
Integration of Digital Competences into a Teacher Education Program: A Sensitive Approach
235
Professional action competences of teachers are at
the core of the TEgoDi competence model. It links
content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge with a supplementary
focus on further development of attitudes regarding
media-based learning (Baumert & Kunter, 2011).
From a pedagogical content knowledge perspective,
the TPACK model according to Mishra and Koehler
(2006) has been selected. Content thus plays a
relevant role within the context of digitalisation-
related competences.
In order to meet the different requirements of the
addressed subjects the TEgoDi model is domain-
specific. A lively exchange with the diverse
departments of the university gives them the
possibility to adapt the TEgoDi competence model to
their respective subject didactics. Nevertheless, it
should be noted that the operationalisation of TPACK
competences is subject to pronounced variation
within research (Willermark, 2018). For this reason,
the inclusion of various established competence
structure models from the field of teacher education,
such as Baumert and Kunter (2006) or Blömeke
(2003), is intended to counteract potential deficits.
3.3 Self-guided Learning
Self-guided learning includes a blended learning
seminar in the field of media competence and media
pedagogic competence. Furthermore, it also includes
media-supported self-learning materials
accompanying the two media projects. Online self-
assessments indicate which additional learning
materials should be provided to students. In
formulating the learning objectives, competences
from the competence grid were mapped to the
learning objectives, divided into rough and fine
learning objectives (Kerres, 2013), and the
appropriate presentation medium was selected.
The online-based learning materials cover
motivational and media didactic basics, procedural
models of instructional design and promote basic
project management skills. Students are prepared for
their media project work and are accompanied in their
learning process by tutors and additional support
measures. This enables students to independently
design learning materials for their lessons, e.g.,
explanatory videos, learning apps, etc. Learning
objects are first presented, then deepened and finally
practiced and consolidated using concrete examples
(Kerres, 2013). Common formats are used for the
distribution of learning materials. The learning units
include interactive videos, links to platforms with
Open Educational Resources, templates, checklists
and guides, recorded presentations and further
literature. Generated materials will in turn be
published as Open Educational Resources so that
they can be used in the field.
The largest part in the distribution of learning
materials are tutorials and explanatory videos. The
potential of explanatory videos has always been very
high, and in recent years the variety and quality of
videos has even increased significantly (Dorgerloh &
Wolf, 2020). Explanatory videos are characterized by
thematic and creative diversity, an informal
communication style and a diversity in authorship.
Professionally produced educational videos usually
focus only on central topics that address a broad
audience. Open accessible explanatory videos also
address very specific topics in detail, and thus
achieve immense depth (Dorgerloh & Wolf, 2020).
The goal is also to provide students with all the
technical, didactic and content-related tools they
need to develop open content-quality explanatory
videos and learning materials themselves and, if
necessary, to publish them. Students are able to use
existing learning labs to develop and design teaching
and learning materials (see figure 3). There they
receive necessary equipment and support from tutors
who are part of the support structures.
Figure 3: Video lab as a part of the pedagogical
makerspace.
3.4 Support Structures
In order to support students in carrying out their
projects and working with media, corresponding
support structures are being established within
TEgoDi. To this end, a wide variety of measures has
been conceptualized and will be implemented
stepwise, tested, coordinated and ultimately
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
236
implemented in a sustainable manner. These measures
can be differentiated according to whether support is
realised either by persons or with the help of adaptive
digital learning material based on online self-
assessments and learning analytics. In addition to
demand-oriented tutoring, personal support includes
peer coaching by other students as well as learning
support by lecturers.
3.4.1 Personal Support
During the implementation of their projects, the
students are accompanied by a partially standardised
tutoring process. Depending on their individual
situation, qualified tutors are available to support
them in identifying potentials and added value of
digital media based on domain-specific and didactical
objectives, in making appropriate use of possibilities
and in developing digital materials. Here, an
important success factor is prior qualification of the
learning facilitators (e.g., Bierema & Merriam, 2002;
Shrestha et al., 2009). Accordingly, TEgoDi tutors are
prepared for this demanding task by appropriate
training, which is designed as an accompanied self-
study using online materials. It comprises the
following five modules: (1) tutorial basics, (2)
(media-)didactic basics, (3) communication and
moderation, (4) project management, and (5) media
technology basics.
In addition to the supervision by tutors, mutual
support of students in terms of peer coaching (Kreis et
al., 2017) is promoted. For this, a corresponding
workshop offer has been designed, taking into account
the media-didactic orientation of the TEgoDi project.
In this way, students will be enabled to help each other
in the joint planning of media-based teaching-learning
settings (Schnebel & Kreis, 2014).
In order to ensure quality of teaching students are
also supervised by their lecturers. In order to support
those lecturers in working together with the students
on planning and reflecting media-based learning
scenarios in a theory-based manner (Janssen et al.,
2013), adequate support materials, for example
discussion guidelines, observation forms or reflection
instruments are developed and provided within the
framework of the project.
Linking these three measures is promoted in
TEgoDi, as there will always be overlaps between
tutoring, peer coaching and learning support by
lecturers when providing demand-oriented support to
students. Concepts are also being developed at an
early stage to combine these support structures
efficiently and purposefully with learning analytics.
3.4.2 Learning Analytics
In addition to the support structures mentioned
above, learning analytics represents an important
element in TEgoDi, providing personalized feedback
to students, especially in the prevailing self-guided
learning activities. As such, learning analytics
elements and concepts are highly integrated within
the foreseen support structures. The immediate
consideration of learning analytics as an integrated
element in a curriculum modification represents an
important innovative approach in this project.
Personalized learning analytics dashboards provide
students with an overview and insight in their
personal development and the effectiveness of their
learning processes through visual processing and
visualization of their learner-related data (Broos et
al., 2017a; Ebner et al, 2015). In relation to the
tutoring concept, this data represents an opportunity
for personal feedback on the projects already
described by a qualified tutor if required. Not only
should students be shown certain identifications of
potentials and possible stumbling blocks through the
use of the learning analytics dashboard, but the tool
offers also the possibility to personalize the learning
environment based on the data.
Dashboard design is guided by established best-
practices (e.g., Charleer et al., 2014, Verbert et al.,
2013) as well as analytical process scenarios formed
by visual analytics (e.g., Munzner, 2015). In
principle, data will be collected from the university’s
learning management system (LMS) and stored in a
learning record store. In this context, learning
analytics also guides the conceptualization and
implementation of learning material, providing for
adequate monitoring of learning processes and
allowing for valuable didactic feedback.
Following best practices in the implementation of
learning analytics at an institutional level (e.g., Broos
et al., 2017a), another important and valuable source
are self-assessments of students, integrated into
personal learning processes on a regular basis.
Learning analytics is also to be applied to support the
assessment of students’ achievements in terms of
project descriptions and experiences in their e-
portfolios. Here, analytical approaches for the
analysis of e-portfolios (e.g., Müller et al., 2016) will
be applied and extended, to automatically identify
missing required elements as well as providing
overview depictions, to guide detailed analysis and to
highlight exceptional or abnormal elements. In
general, privacy issues and ethics in the handling of
data are of major importance. In specific, a high level
of trust on the part of the students is required. In this
Integration of Digital Competences into a Teacher Education Program: A Sensitive Approach
237
context, all concepts are based on the principle of
trusted learning analytics (Hansen et al., 2020).
3.5 Evaluation
Project effectiveness, acceptance and usability of
measures as well as the overall impact of the TEgoDi
project are evaluated repeatedly involving both
formative and summative approaches. Following an
iterative development procedure based on agile
project management (Allen et al., 2012), the entire
process is designed with three major development
loops. Each loop is evaluated extensively, including
feedback from the different target groups (students
and lecturers) and additional stakeholders (e.g., tutors,
board members), using the results for tailoring and
implementation processes. The evaluation will be
conducted using mixed methods, e.g., from the fields
of usability engineering and user experience design.
The development iterations correspond to the
following stages: (1) The first stage involves a
comprehensive needs and context analysis to inform
the development of measures, the selection and
adaptation of validated instruments to measure the
designated constructs, e.g. digital competences
(Ghomi & Redecker, 2019), digital media self-
efficacy (Pumptow, 2020), or acceptance (Venkatesh
& Bala, 2008), followed by pre-piloting and revision.
(2) The next stage comprises the implementation-
focused formative evaluation of measures across two
academic years, facilitating any needed refinements.
(3) The last stage comprises the university-wide
implementation of measures accompanied by a
longitudinal summative evaluation study to assess and
foster students’ digital competence development and
ensure suitability of measures. Different cohorts of
students (i.e., different semesters) participating in the
project are surveyed four times, prior to semester start.
Students for teaching degrees (primary and
secondary) from other universities serve as a control
group.
In addition, the effects of the TEgoDi project on
the digitalisation of teaching at the university as a
whole will be recorded and analysed periodically as
part of the institution-wide monitoring cycles. An
overall concern of the evaluation endeavor is to
identify the critical success factors for sustainability
of the implemented processes and structures.
Generalizable findings of efficacy and lessons learned
will be published in order to transfer knowledge to
upcoming projects that face similar challenges.
With contemporary and interactive evaluation
methods the research team strives to promote a
positive evaluation culture viewing the university as a
learning organization by incorporating in-depth
feedback from important stakeholders, to facilitate
and transform its processes and structures
continuously. Furthermore, capacity-building
activities based on a collaborative self-evaluation
approach are employed to enhance internal
processes.
3.6 Change Management for
Curricular Innovations
The expansion of the curriculum through compulsory
coursework is intended to systematically anchor the
cross-sectional competence of media literacy in all
subjects. Therefore, it represents an innovation and
change for study and teaching. Media projects that
are successfully integrated into the curriculum
contribute to the overall digitalisation of the
university. In order to steer and successfully
implement project driven changes, a smart and well
adjusted change management is needed. A classic
approach often used in practice is the stage model by
Kotter (1995). However, this approach is often
described as inadequate taking little account of the
special nature of German higher education system
(Stichweh, 2005). In Kotter's stage model,
willingness to change is generated by a given vision
and strategic leadership. However, university's
decision-making processes, especially with regard to
changes in the university’s teacher education
program, are not organised top down, but take their
course through the university’s faculties and
departments (Graf-Schlattmann et al. 2020). In
addition, there are other special organisational
characteristics, such as resource problems, especially
in the IT infrastructure.
Taking all this into account, TEgoDi applies a
participatory change management approach,
promoting and maintaining collective willingness to
change in the entire university. This approach is
comparable to the model of collective readiness for
change developed by Graf-Schlattmann et al. (2020).
Furthermore, change agents attached to the faculties
act as experts for e-learning. They promote and
mediate communication and cooperation between
lecturers, university management, faculties and
project staff.
In a loosely coupled system such as the university
(Weick, 1976), it seems to make sense, with the
involvement and support of this collective approach,
to offer the actors, i.e. the professors, as much
freedom as possible, to provide suitable support and
incentive structures and to perceive and involve them
as experts in their field. The goal for each subject is
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
238
to develop its own good practice examples how to
foster media and information literacy skills in their
specific domain. To this end, change agents are
holding talks with all departments to form a common
vision and relevance for the topic of media
competence in teacher training (Getto et al., 2018).
Within the departments, early adopters are identified
and ideas that have emerged are made transparent and
fed back into the community (Rogers, 2003;
Reinmann, 2015, 2019). Furthermore, change agents
support the systematic expansion of the curricula
through individual and group coaching. At the same
time, the need for further training is to be assessed in
order to offer the teachers suitable further training in
the form of bar camps, workshops, online seminars,
etc. at a later stage of the project.
This approach is intended to take into account the
identified variables for action according to Graf-
Schlattmann et al. (2020): professionalism and
freedom, recognisable benefits, coordination and
networking, transparency and visibility as well as
support structures, and to increase the collective
willingness to change.
In order to ensure sustainability of the project,
regular meetings are held with all stakeholders of the
university to reflect on and adapt the approach. At the
strategic level, representatives of the computer centre,
of the central e-learning institution, the university
management, as well as the faculties and deans for
studies and teaching are taken into account. Project
staff take part in the university's working groups and
organise informal coffee rounds and interactive
university formats in order to implement the
participatory approach throughout the university.
4 SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
The TEgoDi concept presented in this paper
represents an innovative approach in its combination
of all elements and its integration into all subjects of
teacher training, so that teachers of the future will be
digitally competent. However, it is precisely this
innovation of the broad and systematic introduction of
media projects that also poses the greatest challenges.
It implies a change in the culture of teaching and
learning. The project-based approach gives student
teachers the opportunity to develop and reflect on
their media competences, especially their subject
related media didactic competences. A
comprehensive support system based on a specific
and well adapted competence grid, with needs
oriented online materials and tutorial support,
learning analytics and other feedback structures are
necessary to make the media projects possible and
not to burden lecturers and departments with further
work effort.
A key factor of sustainability and success of the
TEgoDi project is the curricular anchoring of the
media projects. In this way, the media projects get the
chance to be perceived not just as an add-on, but as
integral part of teacher education. Lecturers are open
to involve the projects in their lessons their way. Due
to the TEgoDi support structures, lecturers get the
opportunity to refresh their courses, the preparation
for school practice phases or test new forms of
exams. Since schools and universities often have
different technical equipment, an essential approach
is to give lecturers and teacher students the
opportunity to test the provided equipment in order
to get a feeling for the creation of teaching materials.
In addition, they shall be made aware of Open
Educational Resources and the possibilities they
offer in order to decide whether they need to create
new content or can use existing material to prepare
lessons (for school and university).
A curricular change for the entire teaching
profession is a major and complex challenge. In
addition, many different stakeholders are involved,
who have different previous experiences, needs and
fears. Not only personal variables, but also
organisational ones, such as the described
peculiarities of the German higher education system,
determine the discourse and dynamics of change. In
addition, there are political requirements as well as
challenges in the digital infrastructure. Currently,
there is a strong commitment to digitization in
schools. However, the question of resources is a
central challenge, as there is a personnel and financial
dependency on political priorities.
Our aim is to increase participation of university
departments and lecturers by discussing media
literacy as a cross-cutting competence. Thereby, the
competence grid serves as a basis for practice-
oriented discussions and offers teachers opportunities
to reflect on their own teaching. Furthermore, this
will allow for a coordinated adjustment of topics
related to the competence grid across all subject
fields in the teacher education programs. This process
is supported sensitively by change agents, fostering a
careful integration of digitalisation-related elements
into courses, with iterative improvements and regular
evaluations.
The success conditions of the TEgoDi concept
are the project-based approach, the inclusion of the
European competence frameworks, like
DigCompEdu, and the innovative strategical
involvement of all sections of teacher training in the
Integration of Digital Competences into a Teacher Education Program: A Sensitive Approach
239
implementation strategy. Moreover, it must create an
exploring field for the students to make trials and
tests. Even if we developed the TEgoDi model taking
into consideration the processes in the German high
education, it can be used in any university for teacher
education around the world. The competence
framework is partially based on DigCompEdu, which
is already a standard at the European level. Moreover,
our approach is interdisciplinary, which means that
the model can be successfully applied in language
teaching or biology, for example. Each subject can use
and adapt the competences which are more defining
in its field. Last but not least, the model can be applied
and customized to different technical levels. It is not
related to a certain minimum technical requirement.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Support for this publication was provided by the
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
(BMBF) and its Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung’
(ref. 01JA2036). Responsibility for the content
published in this article, including any opinions
expressed therein, rests exclusively with the authors.
Graphics elements in figure 1 are from
vectorjuice, pikisuperstar, pch.vector / Freepik.
REFERENCES
Allen, M., & Sites, R. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM. An
Agile Model for Developing the Best Learning
Experiences. Danvers, MA, USA: ASTD Press.
Akins II, E. E., Giddens, E., Glassmeyer D., Gruss A.,
Kalamas Hedden M., Slinger-Friedman V., & Weand
M. (2019). Sustainability Education and Organizational
Change: A Critical Case Study of Barriers and Change
Drivers at a Higher Education Institution.
Sustainability, 11(2), 501. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11020501
Banister, S., Vannatta Reinhart, R., & Ross, C. (2010).
Meaningful Media Production: Teachers Creating
Virtual Field Trips in Washington DC. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19(4), 379-
397. Waynesville, NC, USA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle
Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für
Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469-520. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11618-006-0165-2
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2011). Das Kompetenzmodell
von COACTIV. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U.
Klusmann, S. Krauss & M. Neubrand (Eds.),
Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Ergebnisse
des Forschungsprogramms COACTIV (pp. 30-53).
Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Bierema, L. L., & Merriam, S. B. (2002). E-mentoring:
Using computer mediated communication to enhance
the mentoring process. Innovative Higher Education,
26(3), 211-227. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101792
1023103
Blömeke, S. (2003). Erwerb medienpädagogischer
Kompetenz in der Lehrerausbildung. Modell der
Zielqualifikation, Lernvoraussetzungen der
Studierenden und Folgerungen für Struktur und Inhalte
des medienpädagogischen Lehramtsstudiums. In
Aufenanger, S., Spanhel, D., & Witt, C. (Eds.),
Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 3. Opladen, Germany:
Leske + Budrich. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/
retro/2017.07.13.X.
Brandhofer, G., & Wiesner, C. (2018). Medienbildung im
Kontext der Digitalisierung: Ein integratives Modell
für digitale Kompetenzen. R&E-SOURCE, (10).
https://journal.ph-noe.ac.at
Broos, T., Peeters, L., Verbert, K., Van Soom, C., Langie,
G., & De Laet, T. (2017a). Dashboard for actionable
feedback on learning skills: how learner profile affects
use. In 12th European Conference on Technology
Enhanced Learning. ARTEL Workshop. CEUR
Workshop Proceedings.
Broos T., Peeters L., Verbert K., Van Soom C., Langie G., &
De Laet T. (2017b). Dashboard for Actionable Feedback
on Learning Skills: Scalability and Usefulness. In P.
Zaphiris, A. Ioannou (Eds.) Learning and Collaboration
Technologies. Technology in Education (pp. 229-241).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-58515-4_18.
Cabero-Almenara, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J.-J., Palacios-
Rodríguez, A., & Barroso-Osuna, J. (2020).
Development of the Teacher Digital Competence
Validation of DigCompEdu Check-In Questionnaire in
the University Context of Andalusia (Spain).
Sustainability, 12(6094).
Carretero Gomez, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017).
DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for
Citizens - With eight proficiency levels and examples of
use. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/38842.
Charleer, S., Klerx, J., & Duval, E. (2014). Learning
Dashboards. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(3), 199-
202.
Dorgerloh, S., & Wolf, K. D. (2020). Lehren und Lernen
mit Tutorials und Erklärvideos. Weinheim, Germany:
Beltz.
Ebner, M., Taraghi, B., Saranti, A. & Schön, S. (2015).
Seven features of smart learning analytics - lessons
learned from four years of research with learning
analytics. eLearning Papers, 40, 1-5.
Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital
competence: the teacher digital comptency (TDC)
framework. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 2449-
2472.
Getto, B., Hintze, P., & Kerres, M. (2018). (Wie) Kann
Digitalisierung zur Hochschulentwicklung beitragen?
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
240
In B. Getto, P. Hintze, M. Kerres (Eds.), Medien in der
Wissenschaft: Vol. 74. Digitalisierung und
Hochschulentwicklung. Proceedings zur 26. Tagung
der Gesellschaft für Medien in der Wissenschaft e.V.
(pp. 13–25). Münster, New York: Waxmann.
Ghomi, M., & Redecker, C. (2019). Digital competence of
educators (DigCompEdu): Development and evaluation
of a self‐assessment instrument for teachers' digital
competence. Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Computer Supported Education
(CSEDU 2019), 1, 541–548.
Gutiérrez, F. Seipp, K., Ochoa, X., Chiluiza, K., Laet, T.D.,
& Verbert, K. (2018). LADA: A learning analytics
dashboards for academic advising. Computers in
Human Behavior, 107, 105826.
Hobbs, L., & Marks, G. (2020). The power of formative
evaluation: designing extended professional
development. In Peta J. White, Russell Tytler, Joseph
Ferguson & John Cripps Clark (Eds.), Methodological
Approaches to STEM Education Research Volume 1
(pp. 1-32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge.
Graf-Schlattmann, M., Meister, D. M., Oevel, G., & Wilde,
M. (2020). Kollektive Veränderungsbereitschaft als
zentraler Erfolgsfaktor von Digitalisierungsprozessen
an Hochschulen. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung,
15(1), 19–39.
Godhe, A.L. (2019). Digital Literacies or Digital
Competence: Conceptualizations in Nordic Curricula.
Media and Communication, 7(2), 25-35.
Hansen, J., Rensing, C., Herrmann, O., & Drachsler, H.
(2020). Verhaltenskodex für Trusted Learning
Analytics, Version 1.0. Entwurf für die hessischen
Hochschulen. Frankfurt am Main: Innovationsforum
Trusted Learning Analytics 2020.
Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (Eds.). (2006). Authentic
learning environments in higher education. Hershey,
PA, USA: Information Science Pub.
Janssen, M., Schnebel, S., Stratmann, J., & Wiedenhorn, T.
(2013). Das Weingartener Modell der Lehrerbildung.
Verschränkung von Theorie und Praxis im
Schulpraktikum. In C. Bremer, D. Kremker (Eds.), E-
Learning zwischen Vision und Alltag (pp. 136-148).
Münster: Waxmann.
Kaplon-Schilis, A. A., & Lyublinskaya, I. (2019).
Development and Transfer of TPACK From Pre-
Service to In-Service Experience for a Special
Education Elementary School Teacher: Case Study. In
Charoula Angeli, Henry Gollow-Wiles, Margaret Niess
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on TPACK in the Digital
Age (pp. 173-198). Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA: IGI
Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7001-1.
Kerres, M., 2013. Mediendidaktik. Konzeption und
Entwicklung mediengestützter Lernangebote (4th ed.).
München: Oldenbourg.
KMK (2020). Bericht der Lenkungsgruppe zur Umsetzung
der Strategie „Bildung in der digitalen Welt“.
KURZFASSUNG (Stand: 30.11.2020).
https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_b
eschluesse/2020/2020_12_10-Kurzfassung_Bericht_
Umsetzung_der_Strategie.pdf
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading Change. Why transformation
efforts fail. Havard Business School Press.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?.
Contemporary issues in technology and teacher
education, 9(1), 60-70.
Kreis, A., Schnebel, S., & Musow, S. (2017). What do pre-
service teachers talk about in collaborative lesson
planning dialogues? Results of an intervention study
with content focused peer coaching. Lehrerbildung auf
dem Prüfstand, Sonderheft, 80-106.
Krumsvik, R., & Jones, L. (2013). Teachers’ Digital
Competence in Upper Secondary School: (Work in
Progress). ICICTE 2013 Proceedings, 171-183.
http://www.icicte.org/Proceedings2013/Papers%2020
13/05-1-Krumsvik.pdf.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2008). Situated learning.
Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511815355.
Law, N., Woo, D., de la Torre, J., & Wong, G. (2018). A
Global Framework of Reference on Digital Literacy
Skills for Indicator 4.4.2. In UNESCO Institute for
Statistics (Ed.), Information Paper No. 51.
http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/ip5
1-global-framework-reference-digital-literacy-skills-
2018-en.pdf
Maderick, J. A., Zhang, S., Hartley, K., Marchand, G.
(2016). Preservice Teachers and Self-Assessing Digital
Competence. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 54 (3), 326–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0735633115620432.
McGarr, O., & McDonagh, A., (2019). Digital competence
in teacher education (Output 1 of the Erasmus+ funded
Developing Student Teachers’ Digital Competence
(DICTE) project.). University of Limerick.
https://dicte.oslomet.no/
Millecamp, M., Gutiérrez, F., Chrleer, S., Verbert, K., &
Laet, T.D. (2018). A qualitative evaluation of a
learning Dashboard to support advisor-student
dialogues. Proceedings of the 8th International
Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (LAK),
1-5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170358.3170417.
Mintzberg, H., (1983). Power In and Around
Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: N.J. Prentice-Hall.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for
Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108,
1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.
00684.x.
Müller, W., Rebholz, S., & Libbrecht, P. (2016). Automatic
Inspection of E-Portfolios for Improving Formative
and Summative Assessment. In T.-T. Wu, et al (Eds.),
Emerging Technologies for Education — Proc.
SETE/ICWL, 10108, 480–489. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52836-
6_51.
Munzner, T. (2015). Visualization Analysis and Design.
CRC Press.
Integration of Digital Competences into a Teacher Education Program: A Sensitive Approach
241
Niegemann, H. M., 2008. Kompendium multimediales
Lernen. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Papanikolaou, K., Makri, K., & Roussos, P. (2017).
Learning design as a vehicle for developing TPACK in
blended teacher training on technology enhanced
learning. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 34.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0072-x.
Pettersson, F. (2018). On the issues of digital competence in
educational contexts A review of literature. Education
and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1005–1021.
Pumptow, M., & Brahm, T. (2020). Students’ Digital Media
Self-Efficacy and Its Importance for Higher Education
Institutions: Development and Validation of a Survey
Instrument. Technology, Knowledge and Learning.
Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for the Digital
Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu. JRC Science
for Policy Report. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/
publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-
reports/european-framework-digital-competence-
educators-digcompedu.
Reigeluth, C. M. & Carr-Chellman, A. A., 2009.
Instructional-design theories and models. Volume III:
Building a common knowledge base. Abingdon:
Routledge. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/
lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10370216
Reinmann, G., 2015. Studientext Didaktisches Design.
Retrieved 06.08.20, from Universität Hamburg:
https://gabi-reinmann.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/
Studientext_DD_Sept2015.pdf
Reinmann, G., 2019. Digitalisierung und hochschul-
didaktische Weiterbildung: Eine Kritik. In J. Heider-
Lang & A. Merkert (Eds..), Digitale Transformation in
der Bildungslandschaft – den analogen Stecker ziehen?
(pp. 232–250). Baden-Baden, Germany: Rainer Hampp.
https://doi.org/10.5771/9783957103406-232.
Rogers, E. M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Edition.
5th ed. New York: Free Press.
Schleicher, A. (2020). The impact of covid-19 on education
insights from education at a glance 2020.
https://www.oecd.org/education/the-impact-of-covid-
19-on-education-insights-education-at-a-glance-
2020.pdf.
Schnebel, S., & Kreis, A. (2014). Kollegiales
Unterrichtscoaching zwischen Lehramtsstudierenden.
Journal für LehrerInnenbildung, 4, 41-46.
Shrestha, C. H., May, S., Edirisingha, P., Burke, L., &
Linsey, T. (2009). From face-to-face to e-mentoring:
Does the “e” add any value for mentors? International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
20(2), 116-124.
Stichweh, R. (2005). Neue Steuerungsformen der
Universität und die akademische Selbstverwaltung. In
U. Sieg & D. Korsch (Eds.), Die Idee der Universität
heute (pp. 123-134). München: K. G. Saur.
Stratmann, J., & Müller, W. (2018). Lehrerbildung aus Sicht
der Digitalisierung. Lehren und Lernen. Zeitschrift für
Schule und Innovation aus Baden-Württemberg, 44(7),
4–9.
Stratmann, J., Preussler, A., & Kerres, M. (2009).
Lernerfolg und Kompetenz: Didaktische Potenziale der
Portfolio-Methode im Hochschulstudium. Zeitschrift
für Hochschulentwicklung, 4(1). https://zfhe.at/index.
php/zfhe/article/view/55.
Verbert, K., Duval, E., Klerkx, J., Govaerts, S., & Santos,
J.L. (2013). Learning analytics dashboard applications.
American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1500-1509.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479363.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance
model 3 and a research agenda on interventions.
Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely
Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly,
21(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875.
Willermark, S. (2018). Technological pedagogical and
content knowledge: A review of empirical studies
published from 2011 to 2016. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 56(3), 315–343.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117713114.
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
242