Training in Digital and Didactic Competences for Future Foreign Language Teachers: Reflecting on the Learning Process

−RQ1: What are students’ overall perceptions of competences development?

−RQ2: What are students’ self-perceptions on digital competence development?

−RQ3: What are students’ self-perceptions on didactic competence development?

−RQ4: What are students’ self-perceptions on individual dimensions development?

−RQ5: Was the proposal useful according to students’ feedback?

−RQ6: Were the different tasks from each portfolio significatively related?

−RQ7: Were the various
dimensions addressed in each portfolio significatively related in the three tasks?

2.3. Procedure

The design of the digital competence tasks followed the suggestions summarised by Krumskiv (2014) for efficient implementation. First, educational experiences and strategies to enhance students’ ability to adopt digital technologies were introduced with the presentation of the tasks and tools to be used. Secondly, active participation was fostered by offering not only theoretical resources, but suitable digital technology-based activities to provide practical experience (tasks), and the opportunity to reflect on their use and evaluate the accomplishments. This was possible because of the distribution of an adapted questionnaire using Likert scale after the execution of each of the three tasks proposed (see Table 1). Thirdly, digital competence-related teaching and learning activities were accompanied by learning environments for peer evaluation and collaboration (task and post-task). Peer evaluation is considered a collaborative dynamic itself (Stančić, 2021), so collaboration was greatly promoted as an efficient way to enhance digital competence training, as suggested by related literature (Krumskiv, 2014; Liu et al., 2015; Reisoğlu & Çebi, 2020). The last recommendation entrusts teachers to provide continuous and productive feedback and offering hands-on opportunities, which was ensured by the very nature of continuous evaluation.

2.4. Data collection and analysis

An adapted questionnaire (see Appendix) was distributed after each of the three tasks, so the expected evolution in learning was observed according to students’ self-evaluation of the different elements worked. This evolution was descriptively approached from different angles considering the average ranges obtained from the Likert scale-based responses. First, global self-perception including both digital and didactic competences was calculated after each task execution. Then, the same temporal evolution was calculated for individual competences. Lastly, the evolution in learning was calculated considering grouped categories from each competence: SELFIE: 1) professional engagement; 2) digital resources; 3) teaching & learning; and 4) assessment and EPOSTL: 1) methodology; 2) assessment; 3) lesson planning; and 4) resources. It must be noted that the categories included in the questionnaire perfectly aligned with the tasks proposed, so the self-evaluation corresponded with real assignments. The open-ended questionnaire was focused on getting a qualitative perspective on the suitability and significance of the design to train both competences, and to complement students’ evaluation on the implementation.

Additionally, this work aimed to measure the significance of the combined training by calculating the statistical dependence between variables in the three different stages of the implementation. Spearman’s Rho (non-normal distribution) correlation coefficients, as well as significance values (p<0.005) were calculated by the application of this non-parametric technique (Cohen et al., 2017; Cresswell, 2013). This was intended to understand the relevance of developing digital competence using technological tools and, simultaneously, developing the didactic ones for the tasks proposed which combined both. In this case, the degree of intensity in the association among variables was calculated considering the potential dependence between global grouped variables (SELFIE-EPOSTL), and disaggregated ones. The latter implied calculating potential correlations among individual grouped variables, or thematic categories, from both portfolios. The correlation coefficients were calculated for the three different phases of the implementation to comprehend the suitability of this combination for each of the tasks: pre-task, task, and post-task.

3. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The first analysis carried out (RQ1) included all the items of the questionnaire distributed online in the three phases of the implementation, in order to provide an overview of the overall evolution during the course. The questionnaires had 30 responses (pre-task), 41 responses (task), and 13 responses (post-task) respectively. It should be noted that the questionnaires were answered on a voluntary basis after each task, which explains the differences in participation between the three tasks. The average ranges of the ratings received in each questionnaire were obtained to equalise the samples. The Likert scale values ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 represented “strongly disagree” and 5 “strongly agree”. The correspondence of these nominal values and their interpretation in the form of percentages are shown in Table 2.

The pre-task entailed the visualisation of videos on foreign language teaching & learning and the participation on the forums. The former was mostly receptive and the whole assignment did not introduce any new digital tools. The pre-task made use of the Learning Management System (LMS) employed at the university for their participation in the forums, so they were already accustomed to the tool. Therefore, it can be assumed that the results obtained in the pre-task can practically be taken as the students’ initial self-perception on their digital and didactic competence that should serve as a starting point for measuring their evolution throughout the course. Figure 4 depicts the holistic evolution during the subject. Initially, students’ overall self-perception of their competences was high (75.3% = good). After the execution of the intermediate task, it increased, and competences rated close to excellent values (78.22%) to finally decrease in an almost unnoticeable manner (78.08%) when completing the cycle with the post-task.

Figure 4. Overall self-perception of competences (average ranges)

When looking at their digital competence independently (RQ2) (Figure 5), it can be observed that students initially considered to have this competence highly developed with excellent ratings for the pre-task (88%). However, this self-perception drops considerably (79.9%) after carrying out the task, in which students use for the first time new digital tools (MS Teams), in this case, to work collaboratively in the preparation of the lesson plan. Self-perception of digital competence in the post-task returns to excellent values after the post-task (81.7%), although in a more modest way. Didactic competence (RQ3), however, presented different trends (Figure 6). The initial evaluation (pre-task) showed a self-perceived efficient management of didactic issues in the foreign language (74.7%). However, it visibly improves when developing the task (84.3%) to practically revert to original values after the post-task (75.8%).

Figure 5. Self-perception of digital competences (average ranges)

Figure 6. Self-perception on didactic competence (average ranges)

When the variables grouped together on the items belonging to the SELFIE portfolio (Figure 7) are examined in detail (RQ4), it is noticed that there has been a progressive improvement throughout the course in all cases. At the end of the self-evaluation cycle, students considered to have reached optimum levels of development in the skills associated with these specific competences, except for the variable “professional engagement”, which, nevertheless, was on the verge of reaching an excellent value (76.2%).

Figure 7. Self-perception on disaggregated SELFIE variables (average ranges)

The grouped variables corresponding to the EPOSTL portfolio (RQ4) (Figure 8), unlike in the previous case, showed an irregular evolution. In all cases, students have an excellent initial self-perception (values > 80%), except for the variable “resources”. The methodological aspects, as well as the ones regarding to the resources or assessment evolved favourably in all cases from the pre-task to the task, apart from the variable “lesson planning” which fell drastically after the execution of the task (from 82,3% to 60,2%). It is important to note that the latter was the only occasion in which the values fell below the threshold of the description “good”. Likewise, “lesson planning” was the only variable that exceeded the initial thresholds (pre-task) since the generalised tendency was a slight decrease from the task to the post-task.

Figure 8. Self-perception on disaggregated EPOSTL variables (average ranges)

As previously indicated, this first quantitative approach was followed by a series of semi-structured interviews (RQ5). First, the suitability of combining training on both competences was inquired in terms of the balance on their development. This question had a common agreement on the balance achieved by the combination of tasks, although respondent 5 highlighted the fact that this element was dependent on the prior knowledge of each individual student. Besides, respondents evaluated the usefulness of each task according to the objectives of the subject in the development of both competences. 60% of the respondents chose the task or development of a lesson plan as the most useful one, followed by 40% of the responses who selected the post-task. The interview continued by asking whether the perception of their digital and didactic competences had changed after taking the subject. For digital competence, 60% answered they had changed, especially remarking the importance of the transition from theory to practice. For didactic ones, there was common agreement on this same fact.

Respondents also indicated the areas in which they experienced the most progress. In the case of digital competences, they especially appreciated having the opportunity to collaborate in the preparation of the lesson plan. As for their development of didactic competences, they commented on the usefulness of the pre-task and post-task to get a better understanding of different assessment approaches. Finally, there was a question aimed to understand the relevance of self-evaluation on digital and didactic competences for teaching practice. Once again, there was common agreement on the significance of these tools. Students commented that they had stimulated the memory and had forced them to critically think about personal preferences and convictions, as well as to reflect and to better know what to do in different professional situations.

The last analyses included in this work were exploratory and aimed to find potential correlations between the variables studied, that is to calculate the level of change in one variable due to the change in another and understand the relationship and strength between them. Spearman’s Rho (non-normal distribution) correlation coefficients, as well as significance values (p<0.005) were calculated by the application of this non-parametric technique. Looking at both portfolios from a global perspective as used in this implementation (RQ6), they were found to be highly correlated in the pre-task and task (correlation coefficient of 0.596 and 0.586 respectively) (Martínez-Ortega et al., 2009). The combination of digital and didactic practice in the post-task, however, was not significant as can be observed in Table 3.

The following correlation analyses focused on the three stages part of the formative process: pre-task, task, and post-task (RQ7). Just as in the global analyses shown in Table 3, possible correlations between digital and didactic (SELFIE-EPOSTL) competences were calculated, although in this occasion this was done for the grouped variables of each portfolio. Regarding the pre-task (Table 4), “digital resources” (SELFIE) was found to be highly correlated with “methodology” and “lesson planning” (SELFIE) (correlation coefficient of 0.656 and 0.548 respectively). In addition, a high correlation coefficient (0.524) was found between the category “assessment”, which was included in both portfolios, although with evident approach-based differences.

Table 5 shows the correlation significance values for the grouped variables of each portfolio found in the task. Once again, “digital resources” proved to be highly related with “methodology” and “resources” (correlation coefficient of 0.564 and 0.517, respectively), and to have a moderate dependence with “assessment” (0.493). Similarly, “teaching & learning” was found to be moderately dependent on “methodology” and “assessment” (0.453 and 0.450 respectively). For the post-task, correlation values were not significant for the variables analysed (Table 6). These results confirmed those obtained in the overall study of the possible dependence between the variables included in both portfolios.

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The current study presents, on the one hand, future language teachers’ evolution in their training in digital and didactic competences, through the implementation of a proposal that proposes the integrated practice of both competences. This innovative approach is based on the need for prospective educators to implement technology supported by appropriate pedagogical approaches (Karsli et al., 2023). It also follows trends at European level in which the ability to use technology at professional level is considered a fundamental and transversal subject that should be part of any community education program (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2020). Related literature has highlighted the importance and necessity of developing this competence also for foreign language teaching professionals, whose digital training has been identified to be crucial for an effective integration of technology in language instruction (Sumarni et al., 2023). On the other hand, this study has sought to validate the design presented for the training of both competences in the subject "Teaching English as a Foreign Language" as a suitable learning proposal.

In order to observe progress, two portfolios (SELFIE & EPOSTL) were used as the basis for the creation of a new instrument. These two tools were developed to encourage reflection in teaching practice in the areas of digital skills and didactics and, so far, had been applied separately to this aim. In this case, a new Likert-scale instrument was created, like other studies that have adapted conceptual constructs to fit own didactic and research objectives (Bergil & Saricoban, 2017; Reisoğlu & Çebi, 2020). This dual approach to digital and didactic competences, however, can be considered novel both in terms of the implementation proposal and the research approach. While the DigcompEdu, on which the SELFIE portfolio is based, has been widely studied (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2020; Castaño-Muñoz et al., 2021; da Luz & do Espirito Santo, 2023; Krumskiv, 2014; Yoon, 2022), it is important to keep in mind that research on the EPOSTL has been scarce to date, and the studies available are mostly descriptive (Seitova et al.,2019). Furthermore, the authors are not aware of similar studies in which the unified study of both competences is proposed.

In the overall evaluation of students' progress, there is an increasing trend between the pre-task and the task. The values of the latter remained almost the same after the post-task. Taking these values into account, it can be determined that, in broad terms, the implementation of these activities had a positive effect on the students, as their self-perception of their competences improved over the course. These results are relevant because self-efficacy, here reflected in widespread progress, is a relevant motivational factor that has been shown to influence teaching effectiveness (Bergil & Saricoban, 2017). In addition, reflective practice has been fostered through actions such as the integration of new knowledge into future teaching practice, because of the generation of this new knowledge and the analysis of the actions carried out. Therefore, the general results of the implementation have allowed, in an introductory way, to successfully train competences and apply practices that are considered essential in foreign language teaching (Castaño-Muñoz et al., 2022, Ni Dhiorbháin, 2019).

The progress in digital competence, when analysed independently, showed that the students probably overvalued their digital competence in an initial phase. This perception changed downwards when the task was carried out. In the task, MS Teams was used for the first time as a collaborative tool. It can be interpreted that, after the use of the different applications of this digital tool and because of reflective practice, students realised that they still did not reach the levels of excellence that had been initially assumed. On the other hand, the didactic competence studied individually showed a more cautious self-perception by the students in the pre-task, which is understandable since there is no other subject in the degree that deals with the didactics of foreign language. Self-perception of this competence rose considerably after completion of the task. This is also reasonable since it is here that students have to create a lesson plan where they work on specific pedagogical aspects from a practical perspective, which had a clear effect on their perception after the task was completed.

The results related to the grouped variables from the SELFIE portfolio showed a progress that has a highly positive interpretation in terms of the suitability of the inclusion of the different technological tools proposed. As they were progressively introduced throughout the different tasks, self-perception values increased. This can be considered, therefore, a successful design for prospective teachers’ digital competence training, following Krumskiv’s (2014) steps to efficiently implement digital education for student-teachers. This included practical experience to design and develop digital technology-based teaching activities, to reflect and evaluate their accomplishments, as well as to provide a learning environment for peer evaluation and collaboration (Krumskiv, 2014; Reisoğlu & Çebi, 2020).

On the other hand, the variables grouped from the EPOSTL portfolio also showed an improving trend from the pre-task to the task for the variables: “methodology”, “resources” and “assessment”; although there was a slight decrease in all of them after the post-task. This is coherent with the nature of the tasks, as the intermediate task or “task” especially focused on the didactic aspect, so it is to be expected that there are no significant variations afterwards. For the variable “lesson planning” there was a considerable drop between the pre-task and the task, which may again be due to students’ overestimation of their abilities prior to carrying out the development of a lesson plan (task). These values, however, return to the "excellent" range after the completion of the task cycle.

The semi-structured interviews conducted have complemented the interpretation of the detailed results and added more nuanced information to the quantitative study. There was unanimity in the relevance of the combination of competences, although students found the intermediate task especially significant, which was also the one in which they noticed the most progress. This task allowed collaborative work for the elaboration of a lesson plan. This appreciation coincides with the results of other similar experiences where the proposal of collaborative work to train digital competence has been considered fundamental, regardless of students' previous experience (Castaño-Muñoz et al., 2023; Reisoğlu & Çebi, 2020). The structure of the activity served as a role model and theoretical information was combined with the possibility of learning by doing. Although with a slightly lower rating, students also rated positively the possibility of peer evaluation, something that falls within the standards of effective digital competence training (Krumskiv, 2014). The students were able to self-evaluate their competence development through the tools used, thanks to which they were able to determine a positive change in their skills. It can be confirmed that the use of both adapted portfolios played a key role in reflective learning, confirming their usefulness in the university environment and not only in the professional one (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2020) and, at the same time, fostering quality standards in learning and teaching (Haggag, 2018; Salih & Oma, 2022; Zwozdiak-Myers, 2012).

Finally, the combination of digital and didactic task training was adequate from an overall perspective in the pre-task and the task, although it did not have the same statistical significance in the post-task. According to the results, it is clear that both competences were highly correlated for those specific stages, i.e., the positive values found indicated a direct relationship between the activities from both portfolios, for which joint training was proposed. Correlation analysis of the clustered variables reported the combined activities with statistical dependence. As in the general overview, the post-task was not found to be statistically significant. For the pre-task, “digital resources” was highly correlated with “methodology” and “lesson planning”, and the “assessment” category in both portfolios had high dependence as well at this stage. For the task, the dependence of “digital resources” additionally affected the variable “resources” in the EPOSTL. Also in the task, “teaching & learning” was found to be dependent on “methodology” and “assessment”.

“Digital resources” referred to the identification, evaluation and selection of teaching and learning materials in digital form, the adaptation of materials and the use of software applications to create new materials, so the high correlation found, especially in the task, is coherent with the nature of the task itself, although the effectiveness of watching educational videos and participating in the forums should also be acknowledged. The correlation between “assessment” categories from both portfolios in the pre-task also pointed to efficiency in the design. While in SELFIE the assessment was related to the ability to use digital tools for different types of assessment and the critical evaluation of digital activities, in EPOSTL it was concerned with assessment as a pedagogical tool. It is interesting to find, however, results that propose a suitable and holistic approach to assessment. According to the analysis, both variables are correlated and, therefore, it can be confirmed that the design of the pre-task was efficient for this element. Lastly, “teaching & learning” category from the SELFIE was related to the use of digital technologies to improve collaborative learning and the incorporation of digital devices and resources into the classroom practice. Once again, the correlations found with methodological and assessment elements from the EPSOTL are coherent with the very nature of the task and confirms that the activities proposed at this stage were the most efficient in terms of combining the training on digital and didactic competence.

It is also necessary to point out some limitations to the study. Firstly, since the questionnaires rely on the self-perception of the acquisition of digital and didactic competences, there may be a bias, as participants’ perception of their own skills may not coincide fully with objective measurements. Thus, future research should incorporate some external observation to triangulate and validate personal views. Secondly, the sample size and the specificity of distance education may limit the generalisability of the results. And thirdly, the duration of the study can be another limitation, and it would be advisable to undertake a follow-up study to ascertain whether these findings are sustained over the long term.

We can conclude that this study has revealed a valuable insight into student-teachers’ self-perception of their training in digital and didactic competences. The research method has allowed a more fine-grained understanding of the progress in these student-teachers’ competences over the duration of the course. In terms of their digital competence, as expressed through the SELFIE, it seems that they may have overestimated their initial digital competence, and as they got involved in the task their perception of digital competence fluctuated, but there is a modest overall improvement at the end of the course. As for their didactic competence, measured through the EPOSTL, the most relevant finding is that their self-perceived improvement coincides with the task, which involves one of the quintessential duties of a teacher: planning a lesson. The interviews added a qualitative dimension to the study and showed the relevance of combining digital and didactic competences and the importance of collaborative work in teacher training. The correlation study confirms this line of thought, highlighting the interdependence of digital and didactic competences in the pre-task and task stages. The implication of this finding is that the integrated training in digital and didactic competences is most effective in specific phases of the course, not in the whole of it. Thus, the introduction of well-designed tasks which combine digital and didactic competences can effectively enhance teacher training programmes. Furthermore, the emphasis on collaboration and a hands-on approach, together with reflective practices aligns with current pedagogical trends.

As practical recommendations for course designers and practitioners, we can highlight the following: 1) provide hands-on experiences for collaborative work in which student-teachers use digital tools for language instruction; 2) integrate technology (digital competence) with pedagogy (didactic competence; 3) foster reflective practice encouraging student teachers to critically analyse their teaching methods, and encourage the use of reflective tools such as portfolios; and finally 4) combine theoretical knowledge with the practical application of digital and didactic competence in real-world teaching contexts.

In sum, this study contributes to the well-established body of literature on digital competence in education and encourages scholars to incorporate didactic competence as well, in order to prepare future foreign language teachers with the multi-faceted skills which are required in the 21^st century, in modern teaching environments.

REFERENCES

Bergil, A. S., & Sariçoban, A. (2017). The use of EPOSTL to determine the self-efficacy of prospective EFL teachers: Raising awareness in English language teacher education. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 399–411. https://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/629

Bergil, A., & Sarıçoban, A. (2018). Utilizing the EPOSTL for English language teacher education process: Needs and gains. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 5(4), 1007–1029. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/516/309

Cabero-Almenara, J., Barroso-Osuna, J., Rodríguez, A. P., & Llorente-Cejudo, C. (2020). Digital competence frameworks for university teachers: Their evaluation through the expert competence coefficient. Interuniversity Electronic Journal of Teacher Training, 23(3). https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.414501

Castaño Muñoz, J., Pokropek, A., & Weikert García, L. (2022). For to all those who have, will more be given? Evidence from the adoption of the SELFIE tool for the digital capacity of schools in Spain. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(6), 1937–1955. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13222

Castaño Muñoz, J., Vuorikari, R., Costa, P., Hippe, R., & Kampylis, P. (2023). Teacher collaboration and students’ digital competence-evidence from the SELFIE tool. European Journal of Teacher Education, 46(3), 476–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13222

Castaño-Muñoz, J., Weikert Garcia, L., & Herrero Rámila, C. (2021). Analysing the digital capacity of Spanish schools using SELFIE. Publications Office of the European Union https://doi.org/10.2760/947402

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Action research. In Research methods in education (pp. 440–456). Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.

da Luz, L. C. S., & do Espírito Santo, E. (2023). Self-reflection proposal on digital competence for regular primary education teachers: the Selfie For Teachers model. Cuadernos de Educación y Desarrollo, 15(7), 6521–6538. https://doi.org/10.55905/cuadv15n7-035

Haggag, H. M. (2018) Assessing Core Didactic Competencies of Pre-service English Language Teachers During Practicum: A European Perspective. European Scientific Journal, 4(17 https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2018.v14n17p12

Huang, J. (2012). The implementation of portfolio assessment in integrated English course, Journal of English language and literature studies, 2(4) https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v2n4p15

Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260

Karsli, M. B., Kucuk, S., Kilic, R., & Unal, O. A. (2023). Assessment of Digital Competencies of Teacher Educators with the DigCompEdu Framework. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 67–94. https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.2023.004

Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Teacher educators' digital competence. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(3), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.726273

Liu, S.H., Tsai, H.C., & Huang, Y.T. (2015). Collaborative professional development of mentor teachers and pre-service teachers in relation to technology integration. Journal of Educationl Technology & Society, 18(3), 161–172. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1070041

Martínez Ortega, R.M., Tuya Pendás, L.C., Martínez Ortega, M., Pérez Abreu, A., & Cánovas, A.M. (2009). El coeficiente de correlación de los rangos de Spearman caracterización. Revista Habanera de Ciencias Médicas, 8(2), 0–0. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1804/180414044017.pdf

Mora-Cantallops, M., dos Santos, A. I., Villalonga-Gómez, C., Remigio, J. R. L., Casado, J. C., Eguzábal, J. M. S., … & Martínez, P. M. R. (2022). The digital competence of academics in Spain. A Study Based on the European Frameworks DigCompEdu and OpenEdu. EUR, 31127. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a99c9125-0251-11ed-acce-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

Newby, D, Allan, R, Fenner, A-B, & Soghikyan, K. (2007). European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages: A reflection tool for language teacher education. Council of Europe.

Ní Dhiorbháin, A. (2019). Exploring the potential of the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL) as a reflective tool in initial primary teacher education. Irish Educational Studies, 38(3), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2019.1611466

Önal, A., & Alagözlü, N. (2018). A Descriptive Study on in-Service English Language Teachers' Perceptions of the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL) in Turkish Setting. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(3), 56–76. https://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/988/392

Redecker, C., (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators.DigCompEdu. Edited by Y. Punie. Publications Office of the European Union.

Reisoğlu, İ., & Çebi, A. (2020). How can the digital competences of pre-service teachers be developed? Examining a case study through the lens of DigComp and DigCompEdu. Computers & Education, 156, 103940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103940

Salih, A. A., & Omar, L. I. (2022). Reflective teaching in EFL online classrooms: Teachers’ perspective. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(2), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1302.05

Seitova, M., Mirici, I. H., & Öz, H. (2019). The Effect of the EPOSTL on the Self-evaluation of Student Teachers of English. Ilkogretim Online, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.612580

Stančić, M. (2021). Peer assessment as a learning and self-assessment tool: a look inside the black box. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(6), 852–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1828267

Sumarni, S., Iskandar, I., & Santosa, I. (2023). Assessing Digital Competence Among Pre-Service English Language Teachers: Strengths and Weakenesses. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 7(3), 613–631. https://ejournal.unib.ac.id/JEET/article/view/27914/13035

Yoon, S. H. (2022). Gender and digital competence: Analysis of pre-service teachers’ educational needs and its implications. International journal of educational research, 114, 101989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101989

Zwozdiak-Myers, P. (2012). The Teacher's Reflective Practice Handbook: How to Engage Effectively in Professional Development and Build a Portfolio of Practice. Routledge.

APPENDIX: ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE (SELFIE-EPOSTL)

1. I regularly share and receive material through one or more networks or virtual communities for teachers (SELFIE-Professional Engagement)

2. I can select texts appropriate to the needs, interests and language level of the learners (EPOSTL- Methodology-Reading)

3. I can identify, evaluate and select teaching and learning materials while respecting copyright (SELFIE-Digital Resources)

4. I reflect on the pedagogical practice involving ICTs (SELFIE-Professional Engagement)

5. I know how to engage in peer assessment (EPOSTL-Assessment-Self and Peer Assessment)

6. I can identify strengths and areas for improvement in a learners’ performance (EPOSTL-Assessment-Evaluation)

7. I can evaluate and select meaningful speaking and interactional activities to encourage learners to express their opinions, identity, culture, etc (EPOSTL-Methodology-Speaking/Spoken Interaction)

8. I can evaluate and select valid assessment procedures (tests, portfolios, self-assessment, etc.) appropriate to learning aims and objectives (EPOSTL-Assessment-Designing Assessment Tools)

9. I can structure lesson plans and/or plan for periods of teaching in a coherent and varied sequence of content (EPOSTL-Lesson Planning-Lesson Content)

10. I can incorporate digital devices and resources into my classroom practice, planning how they will be used (SELFIE-Teaching & Learning)

11. I can understand and integrate content of European documents (e.g. Common European Framework of Reference, European Language Portfolio) as appropriate for my teaching (EPOSTL-Context-Curriculum)

12. I can identify and evaluate a range of coursebooks/materials appropriate for the age, interests and the language level of the learners (EPOSTL-Resources)

13. I can design and select different activities in order to practise and develop different listening strategies (listening for gist, specific information, etc.) (EPOSTL-Methodology-Listening)

14. I can use digital tools for both the formative and summative assessment (SELFIE-Assessment)

15. I can plan specific learning objectives for individual lessons and/or for a period of teaching (EPOSTL-Lesson Planning-Identification of Learning Objectives)

16. I can evaluate and select a range of meaningful writing activities to help learners become aware of and use appropriate language for different text types (letters, stories, reports, etc.) (EPOSTL-Methodology-Writing/Written Interaction)

17. I can adapt material, with permission, and use software applications to create new material (SELFIE-Digital Resources)

18. I can use digital technologies to improve collaborative learning (SELFIE-Teaching & Learning)

19. I can generate, select, and analyse critically my own digital activity (SELFIE-Assessment)

20. I can evaluate and select a variety of texts, source materials and activities which awaken interest in developing knowledge and understanding of own’s culture and the other language culture (cultural facts, events, attitudes and identity, etc. (EPOSTL-Methodology-Culture)

_______________________________

¹ Appendix