Integration of Digital Competences into a Teacher Education

Program: A Sensitive Approach

Wolfgang Müller

, Robert Grassinger

, Stefanie Schnebel, Jörg Stratmann, Holger Weitzel

Alexander Aumann

, Gerda Bernhard

, Marcus Gaidetzka

, Leonie Heiberger

, Ingo Kreyer,

Christian Schmidt, Pascal Uhl

, Marion Susanne Visotschnig

and Jennifer Widmann

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)

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6674-0605

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3769-1047

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6525-4341

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4746-5035

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2622-0258

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8882-6880

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3899-0962

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4501-0424

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6831-2196

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

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