Promoting digital competence in secondary education: are schools there? Insights from a case study

  1. Juana María Sancho Gil 1
  2. Paulo Padilla Petry 1
  1. 1 Universitat de Barcelona

    Universitat de Barcelona

    Barcelona, España


NAER: Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research

ISSN: 2254-7339

Year of publication: 2016

Volume: 5

Issue: 1

Pages: 57-63

Type: Article

DOI: 10.7821/NAER.2016.1.157 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: NAER: Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research


Cited by

  • Dialnet Metrics Cited by: 19 (28-05-2023)
  • Web of Science Cited by: 17 (26-05-2023)
  • Dimensions Cited by: 19 (25-02-2023)

Índice Dialnet de Revistas

  • Year 2016
  • Journal Impact: 0.570
  • Field: EDUCACIÓN Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 34/233


  • Social Sciences: A


(Data updated as of 25-02-2023)
  • Total citations: 19
  • Recent citations: 5
  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR): 8.77


In recent years, a large number of educational systems, following the recommendations of international organisations, have introduced a competence-based emphasis into their traditionally subject-based curriculum. This move, beyond what any document can deal with, does not seem to find its way into everyday school practice easily or with instant results. This paper explores encounters and clashes between policy and practice regarding a competence-based curriculum framework. We refer firstly to the notions about information processing and digital competence held by international organisations and the Spanish and Catalan Ministry of Education, and the implications of said notions for teaching. Then, from evidence collected through class observations, interviews with students and teachers, and documents analysis in a case study, we draw on four teaching and learning scenarios where ICT is regularly used. Promoting students' digital competence is one of the key competences prescribed in the curriculum; however, our study showed that the backgrounds and educational views of teachers, as well as the teaching culture and organisation of schools, should be deeply challenged to foster this competence.

Funding information

Project partially funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [grant number SEJ2007-67562], with the support of the Faculty of Education, University of Barcelona. ESBRINA - Contemporary Subjectivities, Visualities and Educational Environments (2014SGR 0632) REUNI+D - University Network of Educational Research and Innovation. Social Changes and Challenges to Education the Digital Age. MINECO (EDU2015-68718-REDT):


Bibliographic References

  • Bernstein, B. (1971). On the Classification and Framing of Educational Knowledge. In M. F. D Young (Ed.), Knowledge and Control: New Directions for Sociology of Education (pp. 47-69). London: Collier-Macmillan.
  • Bruner, J. S. (1973). Beyond the Information Given: Studies in the Psychology of Knowing. New York: Norton.
  • Calvani, A., Fini, A., Ranieri, M., & Picci, P. (2012). Are young generations in secondary school digitally competent? A study on Italian teenagers. Computers & Education, 58, 797-807. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.004
  • Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the Grounded Theory Method. In J. Holstein, & J. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 397412). New York & London: The Guilford Press.
  • Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1990. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • de Bruijn, E., & Leeman, Y. (2011). Authentic and self-directed learning in vocational education: Challenges to vocational educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 694-702. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.11.007
  • Departament d’Educació (2010). Currículum d’Educació Secundària Obligatòria. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament d’Educació.
  • European Communities (EC) (2007). Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. European Reference Framework. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  • Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., & Redecker, C. (2012). Understanding digital competence in the 21st century: an analysis of current frameworks. In A. Ravenscroft, S. Lindstaedt, C. Delgado, & D. Hernández-Leo (Eds.), EC-TEL’12 Proceedings of the 7th European conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 7992). Berlin: Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33263-0_7
  • Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Gansmo, H. J. (2009). Fun for all = digital competence for all? Learning, Media and Technology, 34(4), 351-355. doi:10.1080/17439880903338622
  • Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
  • Glaser, B. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: conceptualisation contrasted with description. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
  • Hatlevik, O. E., & Christophersen, K.-A. (2013). Digital competence at the beginning of upper secondary school: identifying factors explaining digital inclusion. Computers & Education, 63, 240-247. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.015
  • Janssen, J., Stoyanov, S., Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., & Pannekeet, K. (2013). Experts’ views on digital competence: commonalities and differences. Computers & Education, 68, 473-481. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.008
  • Kemmis, S., Atkin, R., & Wright, E. (1977). How do Students Learn? Norwich: Centre for Applied Research in Education. University of East Anglia: Occasional Publications n. 5.
  • Krumsvik, R. J. (2011). Digital competence in Norwegian teacher education and schools. Högre utbildning, 1(1), 39-51.
  • Mills, K. A. (2010). A review of the digital turn in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246-271. doi:10.3102/0034654310364401
  • OECD (2002). The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies. Executive Summary. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from:
  • Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: Sage Publications.
  • Sancho, J. M. (2010). Para promover o debate sobre os ambientes virtuais de ensino e aprendizagem. In M. Silva, L. Pesce, & A. Zuin (Eds.), Educaçao Online, cenário, formaçao e questoes didáctico-metodológicas (pp. 95-106). Rio de Janeiro: Wak Editora.
  • Sancho, J. M., & Alonso, C. (2012). La fugacidad de las políticas la inercia de las prácticas. La educación y las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación. Barcelona: Octaedro.
  • Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: can we change course before it’s too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Somyürek, S., & Coskun, B. K. (2013). Digital competence: is it an innate talent of the new generation or an ability that must be developed? British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 163-166. doi:10.1111/bjet.12044
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
  • Thomson, P. (2014). Scaling up’ educational change: some musings on misrecognition and doxic challenges. Critical Studies in Education, 55(2), 87-103. doi:10.1080/17508487.2014.863221
  • Wentland, D. M. (2015). Knowing the Truth about Education. Lanham: M. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  • Vuolevi, J. H. K., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2010). Beyond the information given: The power of a belief in self-interest. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 26–34.