Are educators digitally competent? Investigating digital literacy among English as a foreign language teachers in Vietnamese universities

2.1 Digital literacy definitions and frameworks in educational context

The term DL, which was first used by Gilster (1997), is conceptualized in multiple ways at the macro and micro levels. The conceptualization of DL at the high-stake level typically covers the role of citizenship (Røkenes and Krumsvik 2016). For example, Martin and Madigan (2006) propose that DL is the ability of addressing digital infrastructure and devices that empower the digital age. At the micro level, DL is frequently defined in specific contexts. For instance, in the school context, DL is understood as the knowledge, skill, and attitude of educators toward the use of digital media in teaching to facilitate the achievement of learning goals among learners and to equip them with essential knowledge and skills for future professions.

Different frameworks and models were developed to provide guidelines for school stakeholders in developing the DL of teachers as well as help educators assess their DL at the international level (e.g., Redecker and Yves 2017), national level (Education & Training Foundation 2019), or at the research-based level (e.g., Krumsvik 2014). Although a variety of frameworks and models exist, their components can be re-categorized into sub-scales according to the DigCompEdu framework (Redecker and Yves 2017), which includes five major components, namely, professional engagement, digital resource, teaching and learning, assessment, empowerment of learners, and facilitation of the digital competence of learners. In the Vietnamese educational system, multiple policies have been issued to support school stakeholders – especially teachers and students – in applying technology to teaching and learning. However, they have not proposed the DL framework for teachers but used other international DL frameworks to measure the DL of teachers (e.g., UNESCO 2013a, 2013b; Redecker 2017). Therefore, the current study used the components of DigCompEdu (Redecker and Yves 2017) to scaffold the assessment of teachers in the Vietnamese context, because the factors of this framework cover the core DL that teachers should achieve. Additionally, digital self-updating and self-learning will be considered as additional components alongside the five aforementioned ones, as technology evolves rapidly in the digital environment. Therefore, both teachers and students need to be competent in self-directed learning and in continuously updating their DL. As a result, this component was included in the digital literacy framework proposed for Vietnamese students by Do et al. (2021).

2.2 Instruments for measuring teacher digital literacy

Drawing on DL frameworks, scholars (e.g., Wang and Lu 2021; Siddiq et al. 2016) have developed instruments to measure teacher DL using two common approaches: pragmatic and psychometric. Based on the type of collected data, an instrument can be categorized under objective or subjective evaluation. In the literature, many studies used subjective assessment (e.g., Çebi and Reisoğlu 2022), whereas others used objective assessment (e.g., Wang and Lu 2021). The subjective instrument was designed based on teachers’ digital self-efficacy and can indirectly measure their DL. It is about teachers’ perceived confidence about their skills in using technologies to support their teaching and professional development (Yang and Cheng 2009). In using subjective assessments to measure DL among teachers, some researchers have criticized that the results may lack reliability and validity due to the low correlation between self-efficacy in DL and actual performance (Hatlevik et al. 2018). In addition, there is a possibility that teachers may overestimate their DL because they believe that they could complete the tasks; however, in real-life situations, there are many problems that they have to deal with while integrating technologies in their teaching, assessing students, and using digital platforms for their professional development tasks. The self-efficacy DL instruments are normally designed as Likert scale questionnaires or multiple-choice questionnaires on which teachers could rate their skills or knowledge (e.g., Do and Nguyen 2025). Another approach to assessing teachers’ DL is through objective measures such as tests, observations, and interviews. An objective instrument is also not a perfect one, because the result may be influenced by the technical ability of an assessment tool (Chanta-Jiménez 2021), or the assessment criteria, or the perceptions, experiences, knowledge, and skills of the evaluators. Therefore, researchers need to consider several factors when developing a DL measurement tool, as technology is constantly evolving. Thus far, few studies have combined objective and subjective assessments to measure teachers’ DL, even though this approach is recommended for a more comprehensive evaluation. The current study aims to explore the DL of EFL teachers in the Vietnamese educational context on the basis of the six components of DigCompEdu (Redecker and Yves 2017) and one additional component, namely, digital self-learning and updating, which were proposed by the UNESCO (2013a, 2013b). In addition, the study adopts the DigCompEdu Check-In tool for academics (Inamorato dos Santos 2019) to evaluate the DL of EFL teachers. Furthermore, in-depth interviews are conducted to gain a deeper understanding of their DL.

3.1 Research questions

The study aims to seek answers to the following research questions:

• RQ1. Is the questionnaire reliable and valid for assessing the DL of EFL teachers?

• RQ2. What is the status quo of the DL of EFL teachers based on quantitative data?

• RQ3. What is the extent of the digital literacy of EFL teachers based on qualitative data?

3.2 Sample of the study

The study recruited a total of 205 EFL teachers from various public and private universities across different regions of Vietnam. The participants represented a diverse sample in terms of gender, age, years of teaching experience, academic qualifications, and institutional affiliations. Participation in the study was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents prior to data collection. Table 1 presents the detailed demographic characteristics of the sample, including distributions by gender, teaching experience, academic rank, and region.

3.3 Instrument

The questionnaire was adapted from the DigCompEdu CheckIn Tool for Academics (Inamorato Dos Santos 2019) which comprises 22 competencies organized under six categories. The questionnaire includes 25 items with seven components, namely, professional development, digital resources, teaching and learning, assessment, empowerment of learners, facilitation of the digital competence of learners, and digital self-learning and updating. The original questionnaire was designed to evaluate the DL of teachers in higher education; however, all items of the questionnaire were narrowed down in terms of scope to match that of EFL teachers. The first part aims to explore the demographic information of the teachers (e.g., gender, age, years of experience, and school digital development). The second part focuses on exploring the DL of teachers by requesting them to respond to questions with multiple choices that describe the level of DL. Based on the responses of the participants, the study evaluated their level of DL using six levels of skills, namely, A1 (newcomer), A2 (explorer), B1 (integrator), B2 (expert), C1 (leader), and C2 (pioneer). The questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese, and a few language teachers and researchers verified the content and language prior to its dissemination to teachers via Google forms. The study was carried out between September 2023 and January 2024. During this period, data were collected through a two-stage process. First, a questionnaire designed using Google Forms was distributed to teachers. This was followed by in-depth interviews conducted online via Zoom to objectively evaluate teachers’ digital literacy and to strengthen and validate the questionnaire responses.

4.1 RQ1. Is the questionnaire reliable and valid for assessing the DL of EFL teachers?

The study employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the model fit using IBM SPSS AMOS 22. Two models were tested: a one-dimensional and a seven-dimensional model. One item was omitted due to its low factor loading.

For the one-dimensional model, the CFA results did not indicate a good model fit (CFI = 0.88, TLI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.07). After modifying the model by correlating four pairs of error terms, the results showed an acceptable fit (CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.06). Regarding the seven-factor model, the initial results met the cut-off criteria for acceptable fit (CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.07). The model was subsequently revised by correlating two pairs of error terms, after which the fit indices improved (CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.06). Overall, the CFA results indicated that the seven-dimensional model fitted the data better than the one-dimensional model; however, both models achieved acceptable fit after modification (Figure 1).

Figure 1:

One- and seven-dimensional models.

Additionally, Rasch analysis was conducted to examine the validity of the 25 items. The results indicated that the item and person fit statistics were acceptable for all items, with values ranging from 0.61 to 1.23. This suggests that the items functioned appropriately at the item level. Reliability reached Cronbach’s α = 0.87, indicating good internal consistency (Hair et al. 2006).

4.2 RQ2. What is the status quo of the DL teachers based on quantitative data?

Data were analyzed using SPSS, and the descriptive statistics indicated that the majority of teachers (40 %) were at the B2 (expert) level, 35.6 % were at the B1 (integrator) level, and 19.5 % were at the C1 (leader) level. Only a few teachers reported low proficiency at A2 (1.5 %) or high proficiency at C2 (pioneer; 3.4 %) (see Figure 2). In terms of digital tool use, teachers most frequently used presentations (85.9 %), video/audio clips (81.6 %), video/audio creation tools (83.5 %), digital quizzes or polls (79.1 %), and interactive apps or games (74.3 %). In contrast, tools for online learning environments such as digital posters (38.3 %), mind maps or planning tools (42.7 %), and blogs or wikis (29.6 %) were less commonly used. Additionally, 26.7 % of the teachers reported using other tools for purposes such as story or game creation, video/audio recording, or providing feedback. Regarding their working environment, teachers reported positive perceptions of departmental support for digital resources and investment. For example, they agreed with statements such as “The department supports the development of my digital competence” and “The department invests in updating and improving the technical infrastructure” (M = 4.09, SD = 0.37). They also expressed confidence in their use of digital technology (M = 4.01, SD = 0.21). Figure 3 illustrates the teachers’ DL components based on their self-reported responses. Among the seven components of DL, teachers’ competencies in assessment, empowerment of learners, facilitation of the digital competence of learners, and professional engagement were higher than those in other components (M = 4.12, SD = 1.72; M = 4.03, SD = 0.88; M = 4.02, SD = 0.91; M = 4.00, SD = 0.87, respectively). Although competence in digital self-learning and updating was rated as the lowest component (M = 3.95, SD = 0.70), competence in digital resources was slightly higher than that in teaching and learning (M = 3.98, SD = 0.88; M = 3.96, SD = 0.96).

Figure 2:

Distribution of teachers across DigCompEdu levels.

The results of the t-test indicated that male teachers had slightly higher levels of DL than female teachers; however, the difference between the two genders was not statistically significant (F = 0.12, t = 0.43, p > 0.01). In addition, the ANOVA results revealed no significant differences in DL among teachers based on age (mean square = 2.07, F = 3.08, p > 0.01). Regarding teaching experience, teachers with greater experience in using digital technology generally demonstrated higher levels of digital literacy, increasing from the 1–5-year group (M = 3.94, SD = 0.72) to the 6–10-year group (M = 3.99, SD = 0.72) and peaking in the 11–15-year group (M = 4.17, SD = 0.86). However, this upward trend did not continue among teachers with more than 15 years of experience, as those in the 16–20-year group reported lower levels of digital literacy (M = 3.62, SD = 0.16). Notably, the difference between teachers with 6–10 years and those with 16–20 years of experience was statistically significant (p < 0.01).

Figure 3:

Mean scores across seven digital literacy components.

4.3 RQ3. What is the extent of the digital literacy of EFL teachers based on qualitative data?

Apart from the questionnaire, the study selected ten teachers to participate in in-depth interviews. The teachers were given the opportunity to demonstrate their competencies in relation to the seven components of DL. In terms of professional development, teachers used various digital channels to communicate and collaborate with colleagues. Six out of the ten teachers reported using email and Facebook groups to share documents and exchange messages, two worked with colleagues via Zalo groups, and two used institutional platforms provided by their faculty or university to communicate and collaborate. The teachers also demonstrated how they sent instant messages, reacted to colleagues’ comments, and contributed to shared documents in these environments. Notably, the teachers tended to rely on popular digital channels for communication and collaboration.

Last year, the faculty collaborated with Microsoft to create a working environment that required us to use our school email accounts to log in. The environment is safe and private; therefore, I feel comfortable using this platform. At first, we were not familiar with it and experienced some difficulties with the new online working environment. However, after attending several training sessions, we are now able to work on it effectively.

Apart from the main platforms used for communication and sharing, teachers also employed other forms of digital technology when necessary or urgent, such as Zoom and Skype. In general, they were skillful in using these digital channels, as they frequently utilized them not only at work but also in their daily lives.

In terms of digital resources, four out of the ten interviewees demonstrated how they used available online materials and digital books to prepare lesson plans (e.g., pronunciation sounds from online dictionaries and downloaded videos, audio files, or images attached to presentation platforms). The remaining six teachers combined existing digital resources with self-created materials for their lectures (e.g., recording videos, editing or combining videos and images, creating English stories using programming software, and designing online tests).

The course books that I use include everything I need for my lectures, so I do not have to create teaching materials myself. I just use the materials that come with the digital book. Sometimes, I also use other relevant resources that I find on the Internet.

In the teaching and learning component, all teachers who participated in the interviews reported that their classrooms were equipped with projectors, laptops, and Internet access, enabling them to integrate technology into their lectures. Two out of the ten teachers occasionally used interactive whiteboards during their classes; however, this practice depended on classroom management conditions. The teachers demonstrated several lecture materials that incorporated various technologies (e.g., interactive games; online speaking platforms such as Flipgrid; and online writing platforms such as massive open online courses [MOOCs]). Their lectures were designed primarily using presentation software, such as PowerPoint and Prezi, with attached digital videos and online links, among other materials. In the classroom, three out of the ten teachers used online platforms (e.g., Nearpod, Seesaw, and ClassPoint) that allowed students to interact with their tasks, while the remaining teachers relied mainly on slideshow presentations and switched to online resources (e.g., digital games and polls) when necessary.

The Internet connection in my classroom is not stable when many students use it at the same time. Therefore, I usually use PowerPoint for my presentations. When necessary, students use their digital devices to complete tasks, while online and collaborative activities are normally assigned as homework.

Assessment depends on the types of tasks in which teachers use different technologies. For example, four out of the ten teachers reported using online platforms designed for speaking lessons (e.g., Flipgrid and podcasting tools) to assess students’ English-speaking tasks. In these cases, teachers and classmates provided feedback online. Six teachers required students to prepare digital presentations for in-class speaking practice. For English writing tasks, seven out of the ten teachers used the Review function in Microsoft Word to comment on students’ written assignments. They also used Grammarly to double-check the written work, while others provided feedback directly through online writing platforms.

I like to use MOOCs for students’ written assignments because the software supports basic grammar checking. Their classmates can read and review each other’s work if I enable that function. This gives students the opportunity to learn from their peers’ mistakes. In addition, when I grade the assignments, students also receive notifications.

For the empowerment of learners and the facilitation of their digital competence, the interviewed teachers reported that they were concerned with addressing their students’ learning needs and were interested in creating collaborative digital learning tasks. In addition, they encouraged students to create their own digital learning materials and share them with their peers.

In my English lessons, students are given the opportunity to create their own English stories related to the target topics. For example, Scratch is a visual programming language that allows students to create their own stories in English by using their creativity and language skills. Of course, students take another course where they learn how to use this software.

For self-digital learning and updating, four out of the ten teachers reported that they updated their knowledge and skills in technology use by participating in conferences or online courses. Three teachers collaborated with colleagues to learn how to use technology in teaching by observing others’ lectures and attending short training courses. The remaining teachers were members of online groups where they learned updated knowledge and skills related to integrating technology into their teaching.

Well, sometimes the workload is too heavy, and I don’t have time to update my digital skills. However, we have opportunities to join short training sessions that are organized through collaborations among universities or by higher-level organizations. We learn and practice what we gain from those trainings.