The gender gap in teachers’ digital competence: ethical dimension, pedagogical use of technology, and perceived obstacles

Brecha de género en la competencia digital docente: dimensión ética, uso pedagógico y dificultades percibidas

Isabel María Gómez-Trigueros. Universidad de Alicante. España.

Tania Molero-Aranda. Universitat Rovira i Virgili. España.

Mireia Usart Rodríguez. Universitat Rovira i Virgili. España.

Received: 2026-02-28; Revised: 2026-03-03; Accepted: 2026-03-26; Published: 2026-09-01.

How to cite:

Gómez-Trigueros, I.M., Molero-Aranda, T., & Usart Rodríguez, M. (2026). The gender gap in teachers’ digital competence: ethical dimension, pedagogical use of technology, and perceived obstacles [Brecha de género en la competencia digital docente: dimensión ética, uso pedagógico y dificultades percibidas]. Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educación, 77, Art. 2. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.120385

ABSTRACT

The Gender Digital Divide (GDD) persists and intensifies as digital technologies (DTs) become increasingly complex. In the educational context, this inequality takes on a strategic dimension, since schools can act as compensatory spaces through inclusive practices. Teachers’ Digital Competence (TDC), which integrates ethical dimensions and the gender perspective, emerges as a key lever for reducing this divide. Using a convergent non-experimental mixed-methods design, this study aims to analyse, by gender, how teachers perceive their own TDC, how they describe their use of DTs, and what difficulties they encounter in using use in the classroom. The sample consisted of in-service teachers from different educational levels (N = 428). Data were collected through a questionnaire combining Likert-type items to assess dimensions of TDC (analysed quantitatively) and open-ended questions to explore perceived practices and obstacles (analysed qualitatively). The results revealed significant gender differences in the ethical dimension (p < .05), while no consistent differences were found in the other dimensions. Qualitative analysis identified barriers related to training, digital security, and self-confidence. Implications for the design of gender-sensitive professional development policies are discussed

RESUMEN

La Brecha Digital de Género (BDG) persiste y se intensifica a medida que las tecnologías digitales (TD) se vuelven más complejas. En el ámbito educativo, esta desigualdad adquiere un carácter estratégico, ya que la escuela puede actuar como espacio de compensación mediante prácticas inclusivas. La Competencia Digital Docente (CDD), integrando dimensión ética y perspectiva de género, se configura como una palanca clave para reducir esta brecha. Este estudio pretende analizar, mediante un diseño mixto no experimental convergente, cómo autopercibe el profesorado su CDD, cómo describe el uso que hace de las TD, así como las dificultades derivadas de su uso en el aula, según el género. La muestra estuvo compuesta por profesorado en activo de distintas etapas educativas (N = 428). Los datos se recogieron mediante un cuestionario mixto que combinó ítems Likert para evaluar dimensiones de la CDD, analizados cuantitativamente, y preguntas abiertas, tratadas cualitativamente para examinar prácticas y obstáculos percibidos. Los resultados mostraron diferencias significativas en la dimensión ética en función del género (p < .05), mientras que otras dimensiones no evidenciaron diferencias consistentes. El análisis cualitativo identificó barreras vinculadas a formación, seguridad digital y autoconfianza. Se discuten implicaciones para el diseño de políticas formativas sensibles al género

KEYWORDS · PALABRAS CLAVES

Teachers’ digital competence; gender digital divide; teacher training; digital ethics; educational technology · Competencia digital docente; brecha digital de género; formación del profesorado; ética digital; tecnología educativa.

1. Introduction

In contemporary society, digital technologies (DT) have become established as structural infrastructures that cut across the educational, economic, health, social and cultural spheres. Their expansion has profoundly transformed how we access information, communicate, produce knowledge, and participate in public life. However, this process of digitalisation has not unfolded uniformly or equitably, giving rise to persistent inequalities that affect access to and use of DT for personal, professional and educational purposes.

The literature has moved beyond a one-dimensional view of the digital divide and proposes understanding it as a multi-level phenomenon. In summary, a distinction is made between a first divide associated with access to devices and infrastructure, a second related to uses and digital competence (DC), and a third linked to the social, educational, and professional benefits derived from the digital environment (Castaño, 2008; Corbella, 2025). In highly connected societies, inequality is most often expressed in the second and third divides, as access alone does not necessarily guarantee the development of advanced competences or a transformative use of DT.

Among these inequalities, the Gender Digital Divide (GDD) is one of the most persistent, exacerbating pre-existing inequalities when access to tools, training and advanced use of DT is concentrated within certain social groups (Martini & Sgambato, 2025). In this regard, the GDD is understood as an expression of structural, social and cultural inequalities that affect women and men differently, and which are reflected in access, modes of use, the development of competences, and the attainment of benefits associated with DT (Cervera-Quijano et al., 2024; Sánchez-Canut et al., 2025).

International evidence confirms the extent of this phenomenon and the urgent need to address it. The ITU (2025) warns that, globally, a significant proportion of the population without an internet connection are women and girls, with particularly marked differences in developing countries. This early gap in access to DT translates into unequal opportunities for exposure to and use of technology, which can influence educational pathways, career aspirations, and DT-mediated social participation.

From a policy perspective, these inequalities have been framed as human rights issues. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights emphasises that the GDD acts as both a cause and a consequence of rights violations, affecting access to education, employment, civic participation and information (ACNUDH, 2017). In line with this, the 2030 Agenda identifies gender equality as a priority and cross-cutting goal and recognises the interdependence between quality education and equal opportunities as pillars of sustainable development (ONU, 2015).

In the field of education, the GDD takes on strategic importance for two reasons: schools can perpetuate stereotypes and inequalities but they can also act as spaces for redress through inclusive teaching practices. European Union data show that the number of young men who have learnt to code is twice that of women of the same age (Eurostat, 2025), pointing to inequalities in educational pathways and access to technology-related sectors. In Spain, although basic internet use reaches 96.3% of the population, gaps persist in advanced uses: the National Institute of Statistics (INE) reports that 39.9% of men use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, compared to 35.9% of women (INE, 2024; 2025). These figures suggest that, as the complexity of DT increases, inequality shifts towards the ability to integrate them in productive, critical, and creative ways.

In this context, teachers play a key role as mediators between DT and students. Their role is twofold: to develop their own digital competence; and to guide the development of students’ digital competence through pedagogical decision-making, resource selection, assessment, and risk management (Verdú-Pina et al., 2023; Gómez-Trigueros, 2025a). Teachers’ digital competence (TDC) is now conceptualised as a comprehensive construct that integrates technical skills with pedagogical and ethical dimensions. Professional performance is therefore not limited to the instrumental mastery of tools but includes the ability to design learning experiences, conduct assessment using appropriate criteria, ensure safety, and promote digital citizenship.

Recent research highlights that digital competence is not distributed evenly and that gender exerts a significant influence on both self-perception and certain aspects of digital performance. Various studies (Grimalt-Álvaro et al., 2020; Moreno‑Guerrero et al., 2019; Pozo et al., 2020) indicate that women tend to report lower confidence in technical and problem-solving aspects, whereas men tend to express greater confidence in managing technological incidents. In initial teacher training, male trainee teachers achieve higher scores in problem-solving and online communication and collaboration, reinforcing the notion of a gender gap in self-perception and certain aspects of digital performance (Fernández-Sánchez & Silva, 2022). Studies focusing on pre-service teachers’ self-perception of TDC (Marimon-Martí et al., 2023) show that, although women perceive themselves as competent in communication and the use of digital resources, they tend to rate themselves lower in tasks involving instructional design and technological problem-solving, whereas men rate themselves more favourably in technical aspects. Similarly, analyses of teachers’ digital profiles in Spain (Verdú-Pina et al., 2024) suggest that women may be equally or even more competent in pedagogical and collaborative uses, but report lower levels of confidence in technical management tasks related to DT.

However, this higher self-confidence among men does not necessarily imply better teaching performance. Evidence suggests that male profiles may score higher on instrumental dimensions, whereas women demonstrate strengths in dimensions related to communication, collaboration and educational support – competences that are crucial for integrating DT into teaching (Palacios-Rodríguez et al., 2025). These aspects are particularly relevant, as they may manifest as differences in confidence, recognition and positioning in relation to the advanced use of DT. Indeed, self-perception appears to be a key factor in understanding the GDD in educational contexts. Kosiol and Ufer (2024) show that gender differences may be more pronounced in self-perception measures than in objective assessments, pointing to the influence of internalised stereotypes on professional self-concept. Among teachers, a lower self-perception may translate into a reduced willingness to experiment with new tools, a lower propensity to assume innovation or digital leadership, and a greater reliance on external support (González-Medina et al., 2024). This not only affects teachers’ professional practice but may also shape the type of digital opportunities offered to students, potentially reinforcing inequalities if certain practices or approaches remain underutilised.

Professional experience has a complex influence on the development of TDC. Rather than being automatically linked to age, this professional competence varies depending on the number of years of teaching experience and the type of training received. Early-career teachers tend to demonstrate instrumental familiarity with DT but use them more for operational rather than pedagogical purposes (Sánchez-Castellanos et al., 2025), whereas more experienced teachers, despite possible gaps in their initial training, tend to develop more cautious strategies for management, safety and decision-making (INTEF, 2022). However, seniority does not guarantee high performance in areas such as digital content creation or the integration of emerging tools, reinforcing the need for continuous professional training aligned with real needs (González-Medina et al., 2024).

From a gender perspective, the ‘experience’ variable requires a situated interpretation. The results of a multi-group analysis of over 1,200 teachers in Spain (Usart et al. 2025) show that self-perceived TDC is the main predictor of the use of DT, with no significant differences between men and women. However, differential effects are observed in the control variables: age has a negative influence on the self-perception of TDC in women but is not a determining factor in the male model.

Teaching experience acts as a moderating variable only in the male model, strengthening the relationship between TDC and the use of DT for planning. This effect is not observed among women. This difference may be explained by women’s more fragmented career trajectories, often characterised by greater care responsibilities or more limited access to specialised training, which can influence both the development and self-perception of TDC (Sánchez-Canut et al., 2025). Gender analysis should therefore move beyond the simple comparison of means and incorporate the training and professional development conditions that generate cumulative inequalities.

Consequently, teacher training is a key lever for reducing the GDD in education. It is necessary to promote initial and continuing professional development programmes that integrate DT, professional ethics and a gender perspective, with the aim of strengthening self-efficacy, broadening teaching repertoires, and preventing the reproduction of stereotypes in the classroom. In this regard, the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model provides an integrative framework for explaining the quality of technology integration, as it argues that effective educational use depends on the intersection of technological, pedagogical and disciplinary knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

This perspective has been expanded to explicitly incorporate the ethical dimension and the need to direct DC towards legitimate and socially responsible educational ends (Gómez-Trigueros, 2025b; Zeng et al., 2025). The ethical dimension of TDC has also become a particularly relevant focus in the current context. In educational practice, digital ethics encompasses issues such as privacy, data protection, copyright, security, transparency, and the prevention of discrimination – aspects that become more complex when disruptive DT such as AI are incorporated, where the opacity of systems can make it difficult to identify biases and unintended consequences (Deora et al., 2024).

Given this context, the general objective (GO) of this study is to examine, from a gender perspective, teachers’ self-perception of their TDC, their use of DT, and the difficulties they encounter in using these technologies in the classroom.

To do so, the following specific objectives (SOs) are proposed:

· SO1. Analyse gender differences in teachers’ self-perception of their competence in relation to the ethical, critical and responsible use of DT in educational contexts.

· SO2. Analyse how teachers’ self-perception of their competence in relation to the ethical, critical and responsible use of DT varies by age and level of professional experience.

· SO3. Describe teachers’ use of DT for pedagogical purposes in their day-to-day teaching practice, analysing differences by gender.

· SO4. Identify the main difficulties teachers perceive in their use of DT, analysing differences by gender.

2. Methodology

For the purposes of this study, a convergent-parallel mixed-methods design was used (Plano Clark et al., 2008), following a descriptive-comparative approach. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously and integrated during the interpretation phase (Figure 1). This approach enabled the phenomenon under investigation to be examined from a complementary perspective, combining the measurement of structured variables with the interpretative analysis of discourses and practices.

The quantitative component aimed to identify patterns, relationships, and statistically significant differences between variables, while the qualitative component provided a deeper contextual and explanatory understanding of the results. Integrating these approaches aligns with a well-established methodological tradition in Educational Technology and Social Sciences research (Ferrando-Rodríguez et al., 2023), where methodological triangulation enhances the internal validity and interpretability of the findings.

Figure 1

Triangulation design in mixed-methods research.

Note. Plano Clark et al. (2008).

2.1. Sample

A nonprobability convenience sampling strategy was employed. All participants were volunteer in-service teachers from early childhood education, primary education, secondary education, post-compulsory upper secondary education, or vocational education and training (VET). The questionnaire was disseminated through professional and institutional networks linked to the project, including collaborating schools and academic networks.

From 460 responses in total, a data-cleaning process was conducted to remove incomplete questionnaires and any displaying inconsistent response patterns. This resulted in a final sample of 428 valid cases (a retention rate of 93%).

The final sample comprised 165 teachers (38.6%) who identified as male and 263 teachers (61.4%) who identified as female. With regard to educational stage, 7.01% of the teachers were in early childhood education, 16.59% in primary education, 16.36% in compulsory secondary education, and 60.05% in post-compulsory upper secondary education and VET. The mean age was 44.71 years (SD = 10.172), and the average teaching experience was 15.27 years.

Although the sample included participants from various Spanish autonomous communities, it cannot be considered a statistically representative sample of the Spanish teaching population as a whole. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution in terms of generalisability.

2.2. Instruments

For data collection, two previously validated questionnaires were integrated into a single instrument administered to the target population.

The first of these was the COMDID-A (Lázaro & Gisbert, 2015), which assesses teachers’ self-perceived digital competence. The questionnaire comprises 22 items divided into four dimensions aligned with the main national and international frameworks on TDC (Verdú-Pina et al., 2021). These dimensions are:

· Didactic, curricular and methodological aspects.

· Planning, organisation and management of digital technological spaces and resources.

· Relationships, ethics and security.

· Personal and professional aspects.

Responses were rated on a five-point ordinal scale (0 = low level to 4 = high level), which enables the identification of different levels of competency development (beginner, intermediate, expert and transformative). The structural validity of this first instrument was confirmed by exploratory factor analysis conducted by Palau et al. (2019). In the study sample, the questionnaire showed satisfactory internal consistency indices (αD1 = 0.83, αD2 = 0.85; αD3 = 0.84; αD4 = 0.81).

The second questionnaire was a 23-item “Use of DT” survey administered to assess the pedagogical use of DT among pre-university teachers. Developed from a literature review and validated by Verdú-Pina et al. (2021), this questionnaire comprised three dimensions:

· U1: a school-level perspective (3 items), referring to the availability of DT within the school and the school’s initiatives regarding their use (α = 0.88).

· U2: use of DT for planning teaching and learning activities (8 items; α = 0.89).

· U3: use of DT for implementing teaching and learning activities (12 items; α = 0.94).

Responses were collected using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “never”, 2 = “once during the course”, 3 = “several days a month”, 4 = “several days a week”, and 5 = “every day”).

The final section of the second questionnaire comprised open-ended questions designed to gather qualitative information on teaching practices with DT. For the qualitative analysis carried out in this study, the following three issues were considered:

· The technology/tools that are commonly used.

· Their main purpose(s).

· The main difficulties identified with their use.

Additionally, demographic data were collected via 12 questions. These included gender (male, female, non-binary, PNTS/DK) (The GenIUSS Group, 2014), age, and amount of teaching experience.

2.3. Procedure

The data collection process took place between April 2021 and May 2023. The recruitment strategy involved contacting schools and professional networks linked to the EDSSE project via email and telephone, inviting them to participate voluntarily in the study.

Once an institution’s participation had been confirmed, teachers received an email with detailed information about the study’s objectives as well as a link to access the COMDID-A and ‘Use of DT’ questionnaires. The instruments were administered via the Alchemer platform hosted on the university’s servers. Compliance with data protection and security standards was assured.

Before completing the questionnaire, participants were asked to review the study information, which outlined the study’s characteristics, voluntary nature of participation, and anonymised processing of the data, and to provide informed consent.

2.4. Data analysis

All responses were compiled into a single database and, following an initial cleaning process, incomplete responses or any with consistency issues were removed. The final sample consisted of 428 respondents.

To address SO1, an independent samples t-test was conducted after verifying the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances, following the methodological rationale proposed by Marimon-Martí et al. (2023). The use of parametric tests was justified by the sample size and their robustness to moderate deviations from normality. To address SO2, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to examine the relationship between TDC and age and professional experience. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics v27.

Qualitative analysis focused on SO3 and SO4, which aimed to describe teachers’ use of digital tools for educational purposes in their everyday teaching practice (SO3) and identify the main difficulties perceived by teachers when using digital tools (SO4). In view of possible gender differences in both cases, it was decided to conduct a content analysis using an inductive approach based on the data collected. Using the survey questions related to the objectives described and the survey module of the ATLAS.ti25 software, the responses were uploaded and the initial codes were generated, directly linked to the content of each question (tools used, purpose, and perceived difficulties). Subsequently, through a process of iterative reading and constant comparison, additional inductive codes (n=25) were generated, allowing the categories to emerge progressively from the data (Mejía, 2011) (see the list in Molero-Aranda & Usart, 2026). The coding process was systematically reviewed to ensure the internal consistency of the categorical system, guaranteeing traceability between quotations, codes and final categories.

Finally, in line with the mixed-methods triangulation design adopted, the quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated through a process of explanatory linking. Specifically, the quantitative results relating to dimension D3.1 guided the qualitative analysis, enabling the interpretation of the gender differences identified based on teachers’ accounts of practices and difficulties. This integration strategy facilitated a deeper understanding of the phenomenon by combining statistical patterns with contextual evidence.

3. Results

The results are presented in accordance with the study’s specific objectives, beginning with the quantitative analysis (descriptive, comparative, and correlational), followed by the qualitative analysis based on content analysis.

3.1. Quantitative analysis

As mentioned earlier, quantitative analysis first examined significant gender differences in teachers’ self-perceptions of their preparedness for the ethical, critical, and responsible use of DT in educational contexts. Data from Dimension 3 of TDC (“Relational, Ethical and Safety), were analysed – specifically, item D3.1 on ethics and safety – together with the demographic variable of gender. Descriptive statistics were subsequently computed (Table 1).

Table 1

Differences in self-perceived TDC (Dimension 3, Indicator 1) by gender

Dimension	Gender	N	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)	Mean of the standard errors
D3.1	Male	165	48.48	30.581	2.381
	Female	263	39.54	26.211	1.616

Statistically significant differences were observed in indicator D3.1 of the relational, ethical and safety dimension of COMDID-A as a function of gender. Male teachers (M = 48.48) reported higher self-perceived competence than female teachers (M = 39.54). Welch’s t-test for independent samples confirmed that this difference was significant, t (308.93) = 3.107, p = .002, 95% CI [3.28, 14.60], with a small-to-moderate effect size (d = 0.30) (Table 2).

Table 2

Results of Welch’s t-test

Gender	N	M	t	gl	p	CI 95% difference	d
Male	165	48.48
Female	263	39.54	3.107	308.93	.002	[3.28, 14.60]	0.30

With regard to SO2, Pearson’s parametric correlation analysis revealed negative and statistically significant correlations between dimension D3.1 and age, r(426) = −.189, p < .001, and between D3.1 and total teaching experience, r(426) = −.143, p = .003 (Table 3). These results indicate that, as age and years of professional experience increase, self-perceived competence in the ethical, critical, and responsible use of DT decreases slightly.

Table 3

Correlation between total teaching experience, age, and Dimension 3.1 of the COMDID framework

Variable	1	2	3
1. Total teaching experience	—
2. Age	.784**	—
3. D3.1	−.143**	−.189**	—

Note. ** The Pearson correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

These results suggest a slight decrease in self-perceived competence among groups with greater age and experience, guiding the qualitative analysis towards exploring potential generational or training-related barriers in the ethical and responsible use of DT.

3.2. Qualitative analysis

The open-ended responses from the survey were analysed using inductive coding, with codes emerging from the data. Nevertheless, three clear coding categories were established that aligned directly with the survey questions: tools used, purpose of use or activity objectives, and main perceived difficulties. Differences were interpreted based on relative frequencies calculated over the total number of responses per gender, given the unequal size of the female and male sub-corpora.

Below is a table presenting absolute (AF) and relative (RF) frequencies by document group (female = AFF and RFF; male = AFM and RFM) for the various codes grouped by categories (Table 4).

Table 4

Frequency of codes distributed by gender

Codes	AFF	RFF (%)	AFM	RFM (%)	TF
DEVICES	304		186		490
Apps/software/Internet	90	34.2%	68	41.21%	158
Mobile Devices	159	60.46%	89	53.94%	248
Virtual Learning Environments	43	16.35%	27	16.36%	70
Robotics and Programming	12	4.56%	2	1.21%	14
PURPOSE	388		208		596
Searching/Consulting information	52	19.77%	34	20.61%	86
Students’ DC	61	23.19%	28	16.97%	89
Collaboration	29	11.03%	10	6.06%	39
Communication	27	10.27%	11	6.67%	38
Specific content	60	22.81%	38	23.03%	98
Innovation	7	2.66%	3	1.82%	10
Motivation	45	17.11%	12	7.27%	57
Organisation	31	11.79%	17	10.30%	48
Personalisation	6	2.28%	7	4.24%	13
Presentation	38	14.45%	28	16.97%	66
Monitoring/Assessment	32	12.17%	20	12.12%	52
PERCEIVED DIFFICULTIES	290		177		467
Students’ lack of competence	96	36.50%	43	26.06%	139
Students’ lack of interest	21	7.98%	30	18.18%	51
Student (other)	9	3.42%	8	4.85%	17
Context: school	49	18.63%	19	11.52%	68
Context: external	13	4.94%	16	9.70%	29
Pedagogical	45	17.11%	26	15.76%	71
Personal	9	3.42%	15	9.09%	24
No difficulties	13	4.94%	6	3.64%	19
Technical	35	13.31%	14	8.48%	49
Totals	982		571		1553

In the “Devices” category, men show a higher relative weight for the code Apps/Software/Internet, indicating a greater tendency to mention specific tools (“Genially, Publisher, PowerPoint” D3). In contrast, female responses are dominated by the more general use of the code Devices. The VLE code shows similar frequencies in both genders, with Google Classroom standing out as a shared reference. Robotics and Programming appear with low frequency in both sub-corpora.

In the “Purpose” category, although pedagogical goals are shared, differences in emphasis are observed. Among men, Personalisation and Presentation stand out proportionally, linking DT to the adaptation and structuring of content (“possibility for each student to learn at their own pace” D35). In contrast, among women, the code Students’ DC carries greater weight, framing the use of technology to develop critical thinking and DC. Likewise, Collaboration, Communication, and Motivation show higher relative frequencies in female responses, situating DT within a relational and interactive dimension.

The codes Searching/Consulting Information, Specific Content, and Monitoring/Assessment show similar frequencies across both genders, indicating a shared functional framework. Innovation and Organisation exhibit low relative presence.

Regarding perceived difficulties, women more frequently mention obstacles related to students’ lack of competence, technical limitations, and institutional factors (“Not all students have the same digital training” D262). In contrast, male responses place greater emphasis on students’ lack of interest, family-related factors, and personal challenges associated with time or planning (“Creating content requires a lot of time” D35).

Pedagogical difficulties and student-related challenges appear in both genders without notable differences, and the code No Difficulties shows low frequency, reinforcing the perception that the integration of DT is still constrained by multiple obstacles.

4. Discussion and conclusions

The findings of this study provide further insight into the multidimensional nature of TDC and how it is shaped by structural, educational, and sociocultural factors.

Regarding SO1, the results show statistically significant gender differences in self-perception of the relational, ethical and safety dimensions of TDC, with higher scores reported among male teachers. This finding is consistent with previous research that identified a persistent gender gap in TDC self-perception (Fernández-Sánchez & Silva, 2022; Moreno-Guerrero et al., 2019). However, several studies suggest that these differences do not necessarily reflect actual levels of competence but may instead be associated with different patterns of digital socialisation. In this sense, men tend to display greater technological confidence, whereas women often adopt a more critical self-assessment of their abilities (Kosiol & Ufer, 2024; Sánchez-Canut et al., 2025). From this perspective, lower self-perception among women in the ethical and relational dimensions should not be interpreted as an individual shortcoming, but rather as an indicator of structural inequalities in processes of access, recognition, and legitimisation of digital knowledge.

Regarding SO2, the results show a negative correlation between teachers’ self-perception of ethical and responsible TDC and variables such as age and teaching experience. This finding is consistent with studies suggesting that professional seniority does not guarantee higher levels of development across all dimensions of the TDC, particularly those related to digital ethics, safety or critical information management (Pozo et al., 2020; González-Medina et al., 2024). At the same time, this lower self-perception among older age groups may be interpreted as a greater awareness of the risks associated with using DT, suggesting a more complex relationship between experience and competence – in line with the findings of the TDC Reference Framework (INTEF, 2022). These findings highlight the need for continuous professional development that goes beyond technical updating and explicitly addresses the ethical, social and pedagogical implications of DT use.

Regarding SO3, the discourse analysis of the participating teachers reveals significant gender differences in the pedagogical use of DT. The qualitative results not only complement but also help explain the patterns observed in the quantitative analysis: while a more instrumental approach predominates in the male discourse, centred on the mention of specific tools, applications and resources, in female responses broader pedagogical aims carry greater weight – such as the development of students’ DC, collaboration, communication and motivation. These findings align with research highlighting a greater pedagogical and relational orientation in the use of educational technologies by female teachers, compared to a more technical-functional approach among men (Verdú-Pina et al., 2023; Zeng et al., 2025). Within the TPACK framework, these differences suggest distinct ways of integrating technological knowledge with pedagogical and disciplinary knowledge, which has direct implications for the design of gender-sensitive teacher training programmes (Gómez-Trigueros, 2025b).

Finally, regarding SO4, the results indicate that, although teachers in general identify difficulties related to the use of DT, the areas of emphasis vary by gender. Women more frequently highlight obstacles related to the institutional context, technical limitations and students’ lack of DC, whereas men refer to students’ lack of interest, family-related factors, and personal constraints. These differences reinforce the idea that the barriers to the integration of DT are not solely but also deeply shaped by organisational, social and gender-related factors (Corbella, 2025; OECD, 2024). Furthermore, the low frequency of the ‘no difficulties’ code across both groups confirms that the use of DT continues to be perceived as a complex and demanding practice rather than as a fully normalised component of everyday teaching.

This study presents several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the use of self-report measures may be influenced by social desirability bias and differences in self-confidence, which means that perception cannot be directly equated with actual competence (Kosiol & Ufer, 2024). Second, the non-experimental design precludes causal inference relationships between gender, age and TDC (Shadish et al., 2002). Finally, the exclusion of non-binary gender identities limits the inclusiveness of the analysis and highlights the need for future research with more diverse and inclusive approaches.

Despite these limitations, the findings confirm that GDD in TDC is not manifested solely in technical terms but is particularly evident in ethical, relational and professional self-confidence dimensions. In line with the TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and the TDC Reference Framework (INTEF, 2022), the study highlights the need for continuous, critical and gender-sensitive professional development policies that integrate technology, pedagogy and ethics to foster more equitable processes of educational digitalisation.

Authors’ contributions

Conceptualisation, Author 1, Author 2 and Author 3; data curation, Author 2 and Author 3; formal analysis, Author 2 and Author 3; funding acquisition, Author 1 and Author 2; research, Author 2 and Author 3; methodology, Author 2 and Author 3; project management, Author 1 and Author 3; resources, Author 2 and Author 3; software, Author 2; supervision, Author 1, Author 2 and Author 3; validation, Author 1, Author 2 and Author 3; visualisation, Author 1, Author 2 and Author 3; writing—preparation of the original draft, Author 1, Author 2 and Author 3; writing—review and editing, Author 1, Author 2 and Author 3.

Funding

This research was funded by the project “EDSSE: Sustainable Digital Ecosystems in Education” (PID2022-142071OB-I00), funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/FEDER, EU, and by the project “Towards a Gender-Sensitive Curriculum in Initial Teacher Education” (PID2021-122206NB-I00), funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 (State Research Agency, Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities) and FEDER funds (European Union).

Supplementary material

The dataset used in this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Research into People, Society and the Environment (CEIPSA) of Universitat Rovira i Virgili (Ref.: CEIPSA-2023-PR-0030) and by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Seville (Ref.: PEIBA 2083-N-23; approval date: 05/03/2024), in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, ensuring confidentiality and compliance with current data protection regulations.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos, ACNUDH. (2017). Informe del Alto Comisionado sobre derechos humanos y brecha digital de género. Naciones Unidas. https://bit.ly/4b5fMo1

Castaño, C. (2008). La segunda brecha digital. Cátedra.

Cervera-Quijano, M. C., Canto-Esquivel, J. C. & Ojeda-López, R. N. (2024). Descifrando la brecha de género en la era digital. Lúmina, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.30554/lumina.v25.n2.5076.2024

Corbella, T. (2025). The Gender Digital Divide: Some Elements to Consider. In: Pérez de la Fuente, O., Skrzypczak, J. (Eds) Bridging the Digital Divide (pp. 23-41). Palgrave Studies in Digital Inequalities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-83479-0_2

Deora, Y., Saini, A. K., Yadav, H. & Parewa, R. K. (2024). Ethical implications of AI in education: Data privacy and algorithmic bias. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, 12(10), c855-c866. http://ijcrt.org/viewfull.php?&p_id=IJCRT2410327

Eurostat (2025). Young people – digital world: digital content creation and coding skills among youths in the EU. European Commission. https://bit.ly/4puraOr

Fernández-Sánchez, M. R., & Silva Quiroz, J.. (2022). Evaluación de la competencia digital de futuros docentes desde una perspectiva de género. RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 25(2), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.25.2.32128

Ferrando-Rodríguez, M. de L., Gabarda Méndez, V., Marín- Suelves, D. & Ramón-Llin Más, J. (2023). ¿Crea contenidos digitales el profesorado universitario? Un diseño mixto de investigación. Pixel-Bit. Revista De Medios Y Educación, 66, 137–154. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.96309

González-Medina, I., Pérez-Navío, E. & Gavín-Chocano, Ó. (2024). Análisis de la competencia digital en profesores de educación primaria en relación con los factores de género, edad y experiencia. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 71, 179-201. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.107277

Gómez-Trigueros, I. M. (2025a). Self-perception of teachers in training on the ethics of digital teaching skills: A look from the TPACK framework. European Journal of Educational Research, 14(1), 121-133. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.14.1.119

Gómez-Trigueros, I.M. (2025b). TPACK as a Resource for Teaching Professional Ethical Knowledge in the training of Social Sciences Teachers. In, Phillips, M., Baran, E., Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (Eds.). Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators (pp.147-164). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032635194

Grimalt-Álvaro, C., Usart, M. & Esteve-González, V. (2020). La competencia digital docente en la formación continua del profesorado desde una perspectiva de género: estudio de caso. En: Roig-Vila, Rosabel (ed.). La docencia en la Enseñanza Superior. Nuevas aportaciones desde la investigación e innovación educativas. Barcelona: Octaedro, 2020, pp. 214-224. https://bit.ly/3OyXmDy

INE (2024). Encuesta sobre Equipamiento y Uso de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación en los Hogares. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. https://bit.ly/4qYS6GC

INE (2025). Encuesta sobre Equipamiento y Uso de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación en los Hogares. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. https://bit.ly/4qc4dR8

INTEF (2022). Marco de Referencia de la Competencia Digital Docente (MRCDD). INTEF. https://bit.ly/471Lsbl

International Telecommunication Union, ITU (2025). Measuring digital development: Facts and Figures 2025. International Telecommunication Union. https://bit.ly/3NwxWph

Kosiol, T. & Ufer, S. (2024). Teachers’ self-reported and actual content-related TPACK – Gender differences. Computers and Education Open, 7, 100205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100205

Lázaro Cantabrana, J. L. & Gisbert Cervera, M. (2015). Elaboración de una rúbrica para evaluar la competencia digital del docente. UT. Revista de Ciències de l’Educació, 1(1), 30–47. https://revistes.urv.cat/index.php/ute/article/view/648/781

Marimon-Martí, M., Romeu, T., Usart, M. & Ojando, E. S. (2023). Análisis de la autopercepción de la competencia digital docente en la formación inicial de maestros y maestras. Revista De Investigación Educativa, 41(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.501151

Martini, E. & Sgambato, M. C. (2025). Digital inequalities and access to technology: Analyzing how digital tools exacerbate or mitigate social inequalities. Societies, 15(11), 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15110318

Mejía, J. (2011). Problemas centrales del análisis de datos cualitativos. Revista Latinoamericana de Metodología de la Investigación Social, 1(1), 47-60. https://bit.ly/4rBobp9

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Molero-Aranda, T. & Usart Rodríguez, M. (2026). Listado de códigos deductivos e inductivos del análisis cualitativo [PID2021-122206NB-I00 y PID2022-142071OB-I00] (Versió 1) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18769057

Moreno‑Guerrero, A. J., Fernández, M. A. & Alonso, S. (2019). Influencia del género en la competencia digital docente. Revista Espacios, 40(41), 1–15. https://bit.ly/4b9uFph

OCDE (2024). Harnessing the Green and Digital Transitions for Gender Equality. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/860d0901-en

ONU (2015). Transformar nuestro mundo: la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible. Naciones Unidas. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

Palacios-Rodríguez, A., Llorente-Cejudo, C., Lucas, M. & Bem-Haja, P. (2025). Macroevaluación de la competencia digital docente. Estudio DigCompEdu en España y Portugal. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 28(1), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.28.1.41379

Palau, R., Usart, M. & Ucar Carnicero, M. J. (2019). La competencia digital de los docentes de los conservatorios. Estudio de autopercepción en España. Revista Electrónica de LEEME, (44), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.7203/LEEME.44.15709

Pozo, S., López, J., Fernández, M. & López, J.A. (2020). Análisis correlacional de los factores incidentes en el nivel de competencia digital del profesorado. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 23(1), 143-159. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.396741

Plano Clark, V. L., Huddleston-Casas, C. A., Churchill, S. L., O’Neil Green, D. & Garrett, A. L. (2008). Mixed Methods Approaches in Family Science Research. Journal of Family Issues, 29(11), 1543-1566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X08318251

Sánchez-Canut, S., Usart-Rodríguez, M., Lores-Gómez, B. & Martínez-Requejo, S. (2025). Brecha de género en la competencia digital profesional: Construcción y validación inicial de un instrumento para su medición. Feminismo/s, 45, 139–172. https://doi.org/10.14198/fem.2025.45.06

Shadish, W. R. (2002). Revisiting field experimentation: Field notes for the future. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.3

The GenIUSS group. (2014). Mejores prácticas para formular preguntas que permitan identificar a las personas transgénero y otras minorías de género en las encuestas de población. Instituto Williams. https://bit.ly/4s9wbxk

Usart Rodríguez, M., Verdú-Pina, M., Villoro Armengol, J. & Grimalt-Álvaro, C. (2025). La competencia digital de los docentes como predictora del uso de la tecnología en las aulas españolas. Zona Próxima, 43, 5-36. https://dx.doi.org/10.14482/zp.43.854.521

Verdú-Pina, M., Grimalt-Álvaro, C., Usart, M. & Gisbert-Cervera, M. (2024). La competencia digital de estudiantes y docentes en los centros de educación secundaria. Edutec, Revista Electrónica De Tecnología Educativa, (87), 134–150. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2024.87.306

Verdú-Pina, M., Usart, M. & Grimalt-Álvaro, C. (2021). Caracterización de los usos de las tecnologías digitales en docentes preuniversitarios: Construcción y validación de un cuestionario. En R. Satorre Cuerda (Ed.), Nuevos retos educativos en la enseñanza superior frente al desafío COVID-19 (pp. 277–286). Octaedro. https://octaedro.com/libro/nuevos-retos-educativos-en-la-ensenanza-superiorfrente-al-desafio-covid-19/

Verdú-Pina, M., Usart, M., Grimalt-Álvaro, C. & Ortega-Torres, E. (2023). La competencia digital de alumnos y profesores en una red valenciana de escuelas cooperativas. Aloma: Revista de Psicologia, Ciències de l' Educació i de l’Esport, 41(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.51698/aloma.2023.41.1.71-82

Zeng, Y., Zhang, W., Wang, S. & Sun, N. (2025). Teachers’ knowledge sharing behaviors and TPACK in the digital age: The roles of gender and social-technical capital. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 1450. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05843-3