This article offers a critical review of training programs in technological tools for university teachers, articulating international frameworks of digital competence, empirical evidence from Ibero-America, and a reference case with curricular design and implementation phases. The guiding question was what design and change management traits are associated with a higher likelihood of significant pedagogical adoption in higher education. Methodologically, a narrative review was conducted focusing on international normative and conceptual frameworks, empirical studies on the structure of digital competence in Ibero-America, and a complete university program.

The results show that the most robust programs explicitly map activities and evidence to recognized descriptors, integrate authentic practices with feedback, and combine multiple literacies with criteria for media selection. There are ongoing gaps in pedagogical integration, repetitive use of resources, and resistance to change, which requires continuous support, micro-credentials based on evidence, and formative evaluation with valid and reliable instruments. Recommendations for curricular improvement and institutional scalability are proposed.

Keywords: digital competence in teaching, higher education, formative assessment, open educational resources, learning analytics

The global transition to a knowledge-based society has elevated Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to a leading role in all areas of life, including education.¹ This transformation does not represent a simple addition to the education system, but a fundamental change that requires a rethinking of the roles, methodologies and skills of both students and educators; the success of this adaptation lies in the education system's ability to strategically and effectively integrate the tools and principles of the digital age. Digital competence is not an isolated skill, but a transversal capacity that permeates teaching practice and the preparation of students for the future.

In the digital age, the role of the teacher has evolved significantly, transcending the traditional role of mere transmitter of knowledge to become a facilitator, a guide and an innovator.² Educators are expected to be able to use ICT not only to improve administrative efficiency, but also to foster students' collaboration, problem-solving and creative thinking skills, preparing them to be active and engaged members of an ever-changing society. The challenges inherent in this new role, such as the need to identify credible information, apply ethical values ​​in digital communications, and produce appropriate resources, underline the complexity and breadth of teachers' digital competence.

The digital transformation of higher education has turned digital teaching competence into a strategic imperative that transcends instrumental management to integrate didactic design, assessment for learning, and ethical implications of data. Widely recognized frameworks offer an architecture for organizing training, auditing evidence, and ensuring comparability between institutions. UNESCO's ICT-CFT version 3 organizes six domains and three levels of progression, ranging from acquisition to pedagogical leadership;³ DigCompEdu specifies six areas and twenty-two competencies with bands A1–C2 that facilitate self-assessment and training accreditation.⁴ In Latin America, transfer resources and institutional pathways have served as a bridge between global standards and evidence-based certification.^1,2,5,6 This article pursues three articulated objectives: first, to synthesize international frameworks and derive programmatic assessment criteria for higher education; second, to integrate Ibero-American empirical evidence on the structure and levels of digital teaching competence and third, to document a reference case that illustrates phased curriculum design, implementation, and internal consistency metrics, with a view to proposing guidelines for improvement and scalability. It is argued that, without a reliable methodology for measuring educator progress, competency frameworks remain idealistic documents, disconnected from tangible outcomes. This analysis seeks to offer a roadmap that integrates theory, practice, and validation to achieve sustainable and effective educational transformation.

A critical narrative review was conducted with three focuses. The first systematized teacher competency frameworks (UNESCO ICT-CFT v3; DigCompEdu; ISTE; INTEF 2017/MRCDD 2022; ProFuturo MGCEED) to derive assessment criteria.^3,4 The second integrated Ibero-American empirical evidence, including a structural study that differentiates and relates technological and pedagogical dimensions of digital competence in large samples,⁷ and recent institutional diagnoses.⁸ The third analyzed a university training program in digital tools as a reference case, which explains the curriculum, implementation phases, and psychometric evaluation (Cronbach's alpha).⁹ It was complemented with supporting literature for the selection of instructional media in higher education¹⁰ and regional resources.^2,6,11,12 Searches were conducted in August–September 2025 on UNESCO portals, official publications, observatories, and universities; the synthesis prioritized transferable design, implementation, and evaluation criteria.

A synthesis of global and regional digital competence frameworks

This section details the main international and regional frameworks, examining their structure, underlying philosophy, and key focus areas. Despite their differences, these frameworks share the common goal of professionalizing educators' digital skills.

The frameworks converge into a comprehensive vision that encompasses the policy and role of ICT, curriculum and assessment, pedagogy, application of digital skills, environmental organization, and professional development (Table 1).

A deeper dive into these frameworks reveals that the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, in its third version (ICT-CFT v3), published in 2018, has emerged as a pivotal tool for guiding teacher training policies and programs globally. Its target audience is policymakers, education experts, and teacher educators, underscoring its nature as a strategic guidance document rather than a practical implementation guide.³ The core philosophy of the ICT-CFT is articulated through three levels of pedagogical approach: Knowledge Acquisition, Knowledge Deepening, and Knowledge Creation (UNESCO). These levels represent a progression from mastery of basic digital literacy to the ability to use ICTs to foster collaborative learning, problem-solving, and innovation. The framework addresses cutting-edge topics such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Virtual Reality (VR), Big Data, and ethics in privacy protection, demonstrating its relevance to today's technological ecosystem. The strength of UNESCO's framework lies in its conceptual clarity and global applicability, providing a macro-level view of "what needs to be achieved" for education authorities. However, its limitation is the lack of granular detail, making it less practical as a tool for individual teacher training. This feature highlights the need for more specific frameworks to translate UNESCO's vision into concrete actions.

The DigCompEdu Framework emerges as a direct complement to UNESCO’s strategic vision, offering a detailed and actionable tool for the professionalization of educators. Designed to enable educators to effectively integrate digital technologies into their teaching and professional activities, this framework is structured into six domains and 22 specific competencies. These domains range from Professional Engagement (Domain 1) to Learner Empowerment (Domain 5) and Facilitation of Learner Digital Competence (Area 6).

DigCompEdu goes beyond a simple checklist of skills by identifying six levels of competency development, from Newcomer (A1) to Pioneer (C2), assigning a role description to each stage. This detailed approach makes it an invaluable tool for continuing education, allowing educators to self-assess their progress and institutions to design targeted development programs. For example, in Area 4 (Assessment), the framework breaks down competencies such as the use of technologies for formative and summative assessment, the analysis of digital evidence to inform teaching, and the use of technology to provide timely feedback. The relationship between DigCompEdu and the UNESCO framework is therefore symbiotic: while UNESCO establishes the "what" (e.g., fostering creativity through ICT), DigCompEdu provides the "how" through specific, measurable competencies, such as the creation and modification of digital content or the use of feedback tools. This suggests that a comprehensive educational strategy could adopt a high-level vision (UNESCO) and a granular implementation tool (DigCompEdu) to guide practical training.

The ISTE Standards for Teachers add a performative view by roles (Learner, Leader, Citizen, Collaborator, Designer, Facilitator, Analyst) with practical descriptors and indicators that facilitate coaching, peer support and institutional adoption without being reduced to tool checklists.¹³ In the Iberian space, the Common Framework for Digital Competence for Teachers¹⁴ issued by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport structures 5 areas and 21 competencies with 6 levels (A1–C2), aligned with the DigComp family; its MRCDD update reinforces this convergence and offers a clear path to accreditation by levels for university systems.

The development of digital competence frameworks in Latin America demonstrates an evolution from the simple adaptation of foreign models to the creation of initiatives that reflect local realities and needs. The Inter-American Dialogue's compendium of digital competencies for teachers is a key resource that documents and analyzes these interventions.¹

Notable initiatives include ProFuturo’s Global Competence Framework for Educators in the Digital Age (MGCEED),¹⁵ which is distinguished by its holistic approach. It is not limited to technical and pedagogical skills, but defines educators through three interconnected identities: citizen, teacher, and connector. The “digital citizen” role recognizes the need for educators to not only use technology in the classroom, but also to act ethically and responsibly in a digital society. Similarly, the “connector” identity emphasizes the importance of collaboration in networks and learning communities, a crucial skill in a globalized and connected world.

Furthermore, the compendium highlights national policies, such as those of Chile and Colombia that have served as guides for the integration of ICTs into teaching practice. These regional initiatives demonstrate a recognition that digital competence goes beyond technical skills, incorporating a socio-ethical dimension that complements the more pedagogical approaches of other frameworks. The proliferation of these initiatives demonstrates that, in the face of a lack of institutional support, external actors have taken on an active role, acting as agile responders in a rapidly evolving technological environment.

The following Table 2 compares the characteristics of the main frameworks analyzed.

Structural evidence suggests that technological competencies influence and co-evolve with pedagogical competencies, so programs should address both in an integrated and progressive manner.^7,12,16 Universities in the region show average levels and gaps in communication and research dimensions, frequent but uninnovative use of resources, and difficulties in promoting critical thinking with ICTs, reinforcing the need for peer support and continuous formative assessment.^8,16,17 Regional compendiums offer taxonomies and tools for comparability and scalability.¹

A report by the Pontifical Javeriana University on the digital competencies of teachers in Colombia reveals significant challenges in integrating technology into education. The data is overwhelming: 48% of public school principals in the country believe their teachers lack the technical and pedagogical skills necessary to integrate digital devices into teaching. In contrast, this figure drops dramatically to just 12% in private schools, highlighting the disparity in resources and training.¹⁸ The research establishes a clear cause-and-effect relationship. The cause is a lack of infrastructure and institutional support: 69% of schools reported not having a program for the use of digital devices, and only 24% had an effective learning support platform. The effect is a widespread deficit in the digital competency of public school teachers. However, the report also presents a crucial counterpoint: institutions that received technological equipment and whose teachers were trained in the use of digital tools for education experienced improvements in student academic outcomes, such as reduced repetition and dropout rates and increased enrollment in higher education (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana). This demonstrates that effective implementation, supported by infrastructure and training, has a direct positive impact on student learning.

The analyzed program is a work developed by⁹ based on digital tools for the development of technological competencies in teachers of the Pedagogical and Technological University of Colombia approached as projective research aimed at solving a problem detected in virtual and blended educational practice during 2020-2021. The general purpose was to design a program that increases these competencies, after diagnosing and comparing the teaching domain (explorer, integrator, and innovator) and student perception, and analyzing conditioning factors, aligning the work with the MEN competency pentagon.⁶

In response to the identified gaps, the program is structured in three phases: pre-active, active, and post-active, respectively, aimed at consolidating foundations, promoting authentic practices in the disciplinary field, and conducting self-assessment/dissemination of achievements; this sequence facilitates teacher transfer and reflection.⁹ The plan totals 120 theoretical and practical hours in three modules: searching for information and specialized software; managing open and licensed tools/applications, both collaborative and individual; and designing, registering, and disseminating content with legal and methodological criteria.⁹ Inserted in a B-Learning ecosystem with Blackboard, it is based on diagnoses of repetitive use and resistance, which justifies methodological diversification and an emphasis on feedback. For the evaluation, questionnaires with Cronbach's alpha were applied: α=0.804 (teachers) and α=0.891 (students), indicators of high internal consistency (Table 3).

The results confirm the complementarity of frameworks: the ICT-CFT v3 provides structure for aligning policy, curriculum, and professional development;³ DigCompEdu brings granularity to tracking and accreditation;⁴ regional and institutional resources facilitate operational translation to micro-credentials and communities of practice.^1,2,5,6,15 The reference case illustrates how a phased design, with modules that balance technical literacy and instructional design, and with transparent psychometrics, increases traceability and adoption. Challenges persist: resistance, repetitive use, and gaps in communication and research;⁸ overcoming these requires teacher leadership, peer mentoring, and formative assessment with reliable and valid instruments—alpha provides evidence of internal consistency, but must be accompanied by validity and, where possible, test–retest reliability.

In perspective, integrating AI and learning analytics in an ethical and pedagogically meaningful way requires anchoring decisions in principles of inclusion, accessibility, and digital well-being, reinforcing the selection of instructional media with criteria of appropriateness to objectives, context, and cognitive load.^10,19-21 This combination favors scalability and comparability across institutions.

The evidence analyzed demonstrates that no single competency framework is sufficient. An effective strategic approach must adopt a combination of models. A hybrid model is suggested that incorporates UNESCO's high-level vision (for policymaking and strategic planning) with the granular and actionable competencies of DigCompEdu (for curriculum design and detailed assessment). This model should also be adapted to the local context, taking into account the socio-ethical and learning community dimensions highlighted in Latin American frameworks.

The main weakness of many educational initiatives is the lack of rigorous evaluation. The model proposed by Barrera addresses this by integrating psychometric validation as a fundamental and unavoidable step. This highlights the importance of a digital tools implementation model in university teaching practice that considers: competencies adapted to a framework with clearly defined and measurable competencies, such as the 22 DigCompEdu competencies; a self-assessment or objective assessment instrument to measure these competencies that can be validated with tools such as Cronbach's Alpha, to ensure the instrument is reliable and consistent; designing and delivering professional development programs, such as those offered by organizations like Eduteka, to address identified competency gaps; and measuring changes in competencies to inform and improve future programs.

These types of models transform professional development from a linear, one-stop process to a continuous, evidence-based improvement cycle. The Javeriana University report identified the problem (a lack of skills), and these models offer a concrete, data-driven solution.

This report has demonstrated that the answer to digital transformation in education lies in a multifaceted strategy. Global frameworks like UNESCO's provide a strategic vision, while more detailed models, such as DigCompEdu, offer practical guidance for training. However, implementation challenges, highlighted by concrete data from cases like Colombia, reveal the critical need for robust institutional support.

The effectiveness of technology tool programs for university professors depends less on the inventory of applications and more on their alignment with competency frameworks, their ability to promote authentic practices with feedback, and their reliable and valid assessment system. Phased designs with modules that articulate information search, tool management, and content creation/dissemination, accompanied by transparent psychometric metrics, foster sustained adoption.

The future of digital education depends on the ability of institutions and policymakers to go beyond abstract declarations. The real challenge, and the greatest opportunity, lies in creating a system for the continuous, data-driven development and measurement of teachers' digital competence. Only through this approach can we ensure that the next generation of educators is equipped to prepare students for a constantly changing world.

It is recommended that public policymakers prioritize investment not only in technological infrastructure, but also in teacher professional development and the creation of reliable assessment tools to measure the impact of these investments. Higher education institutions responsible for teacher professional development recommend aligning initial and continuing education curricula with a detailed competency framework, integrating regular self-assessment and progress measurement as an integral part of learning, and strengthening communities of practice and evidence-based micro credentials. Educational leaders are also encouraged to promote the use of institutional data to identify specific competency gaps and tailor professional development programs to the needs of their teaching staff.

To the university teaching development teams who shared documentation and experiences on digital competence pathways and evidence-based accreditation.

The author declares that there is no conflicts of interest.

1. Latin American coalition for teaching excellence. Compendium of Digital Teaching Competencies. 2022.
2. Digital competencies for teachers: basic guide. 2023.
3. ICT competency framework for teachers. Paris: UNESCO Publ. 2019.
4. Redecker C, Punie Y. European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. J Res Cent Sci Policy Rep. 2017.
5. ICT competencies for teachers according to UNESCO. 2022.
6. Ministry of National Education. ICT competencies for teacher professional development. 1st Ed. Bogotá: office of educational innovation with the use of new technologies; 2013:72.
7. Almerich G, Orellana N, Rodríguez JS, et al. Teachers’ information and communication technology competences: a structural approach. Comput Educ. 2016;100:110–125.
8. Jiménez FYM, Sáenz CLS, Acero YG. The ICT competencies of students and teachers in complementary training programs at normal schools in agreement with the UPTC. Saber. Cienc Lib. 2020;15(1):297–316.
9. Barrera CB. Proposal for the management of digital tools in university contexts. Areté. 2022;22(2):71–78.
10. Bates A. Teaching in a digital age: general: guidelines for designing, teaching and learning. 7th Ed. Tony Bates Associates Ltd. 2022;1045.
11. Contreras MAM. A training model for developing digital skills among teachers at a university in northeastern Colombia. 2022.
12. Caneiro R, Toscano JC, Díaz T. The challenges of ICTs for educational change. Madrid: organization of Ibero–american states for education, science and culture (OEI), Santillana Foundation. 2021.
13. International society for technology in education. Standards for educators: a guide for teachers and other professionals. USA. 2017.
14. Common framework for digital competence for teachers. 2017.
15. MGCEED global framework for educational competence in the digital age. Madrid, Spain. 2029.
16. Suárez CAH. ICT competencies for professional development in basic education teachers. Prax Saber. 20168;7(14):41.
17. Tartera FJG. Digital competencies in 21st–century university teaching. Madrid: complutense university of Madrid. 2016.
18. Pontifical Javeriana University. Digital skills of teachers in Colombia: are they prepared for virtual classes? Bogotá. 2020.
19. Area M, Adell J. Digital technologies and educational change: a critical approach. REICE Rev Iberoam Sobre Calidad, Efic y Cambio en Educ. 2021;19(4):83–96.
20. Albion PR, Tondeur J, Baruch AF, et al. Teachers’ professional development for ICT integration. Educ Inf Technol. 2015.
21. UNESCO. Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. Paris: UNESCO. 2021.