
This study diagnoses the level and profile of university lecturers’ digital competence at a Chilean higher education institution, drawing on the DigCompEdu and OpenEdu frameworks. A non-experimental correlational design was used, based on a self-perception questionnaire adapted from the DigCompEdu Check-In tool and administered to 569 lecturers through the Qualtrics platform. The instrument underwent external expert validation and demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.96). Results indicate that 44% of lecturers position themselves at the “Integrator” level, 22% at the “Explorer” level, and 19% at the “Expert” level, with three clearly differentiated competence profiles. These findings informed the development of a structured training programme centred on three components: the pedagogical use of digital technologies, the incorporation of open educational practices aligned with OpenEdu, and the strengthening of students’ digital competence. The programme includes modular workshops, mentoring led by high-competence lecturers, and the creation of open educational resources. Overall, the study provides empirical evidence to guide institutional policies and to foster a reflective, ethical, and pedagogically grounded integration of digital technologies in university teaching.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
