The literature agrees that the mastery of digital technologies requires more than physical access to devices or procedural knowledge of software; it increasingly involves attitudinal dispositions such as confidence, persistence, and the capacity to adapt in complex environments
Cita a Lytheratis y Van Dijker, digital divide de segundo orden (dentro de la cual entran las diferencias de autoeficacia)
In turn, the literature consistently reports that students with low expectations of specialized self-efficacy sometimes score higher on standardized tests of digital skills
No es así, mayor spec DSE = menor cil; la general si tiene una relación al menos en ICILS. Al respecto Campos y Scherer
The dimensions of the DSE are not only relevant to contrast for theoretical reasons, but also because consideration of this approach has an impact on the distribution among groups
The dimensions of the DSE are not only relevant to contrast for theoretical reasons, but also because the application of this approach has an impact on the distribution among groups
that instruments capture the same underlying meaning across culturally or structurally diverse populations, even though socialization trajectories, interpretive repertoires, and institutional conditions can substantially alter how individuals understand and respond to items
Differential item functioning (DIF) es el término especializado
Rohatgi et al., 2016),
Este estudio es justamente uno de los que si diferencia entre autoeficacia básica y avanzada. Hatlevik 2018 no lo hace, y varios de PISA. En el documento de trabajo hay bastantes fuentes.
The problem is that recent definitions of Digital Competence are no longer framed within a bidimensional approach to self-efficacy with technologies.
Creo que como está escrito se entiende que el marco de competencias se encuadra en la autoeficacia bidimensional, cuando es al revés. Quizás se podría plantear la frase al contrario: The problem is that the bidimensional aproach to self-efficacy is no longer suitable with recent definitions of Digital competence
During the second decade of the 21st century, a broad consensus emerged around the idea that ICT self-efficacy was better understood as a bidimensional construct, distinguishing between general and specialized digital tasks.
Creo que acá es esencial mencionar el rol de ICILS como estudio de vanguardia en proponer y validar esta medición. Sumado a esto, sería importante citar más fuentes que apliquen el enfoque bidimensional, ya que la aceveración "broad consensus" es bastante fuerte (o bajarle el grado).
different or even inverse
no significant relation or even inverse patterns
no entiendo que sería un patrón diferente a uno inverso o no significativo
(Gebhardt et al., 2019; Punter et al., 2017).
Rohatgi, A., Scherer, R., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2016). The role of ICT self-efficacy for students’ ICT use and their achievement in a computer and information literacy test. Computers & Education, 102, 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.001
evident
growing?
efforts
proposals (efforts está en la anterior frase)
Self-efficacy it’s a concept originally formulated by Bandura (1982), which refers to “judgments of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations.” (p. 122). Self-efficacy occupies a foundational place in human agency, because helps to understanding how individuals approach challenges, persist in the face of setbacks, and ultimately develop competence in complex domains by creating fulfilling standards and obtaining performance accomplishments across learning activities (Bandura, 1995; Bandura, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995).
Está rara la redacción. Propuesta: Originally formulated by Bandura (1982), self-efficacy is defined as “judgments of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (p. 122). This construct is fundamental to human agency, as it help to understand how individuals approach challenges, persist despite setbacks, and develop competence in complex domains. It does so by facilitating the establishment of standards and the attainment of performance accomplishments across learning activities (Bandura, 1995; Bandura, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995).
we aim to clarify whether differences in DSE are consistent across contexts or instead a product of how assessments operationalize the construct.
Me hace ruido la segunda afirmación. No tenemos una hipótesis sobre el efecto de la operacionalización de los constructos. El fallo de la invarianza puede deberse a muchas cosas (diferencias culturales, fallos de aplicación, errores de medición, países muy disímiles con el resto), y creo que esto plantea algo binario (o es consistente o está mal operacionalizado).
exploring determinants on gender differences at country level for both studies.
Creo que esto debe ser refraseado, ya que en ningún momento exploramos determinantes. Podría ser "exploring country and gender differences for both studies"
(Fraillon et al., 2020).
Creo que deberíamos citar el reporte más reciente, ya que en todo el estudio hablamos de ICILS 2023
(DSE) has emerged as a central construct in understanding the development of digital competences
Creo que en este párrafo vendría muy bien una cita de la relación entre autoeficacia digital y alfabetización digital en estudiantes. Al respecto, Hatlevik et al. (2018)
(ulfert-blank_assessing_2022?) suggests to work with a unified construct denominated Digital Self-efficacy (hereinafter DSE) to reach a high-level research on this issue. Considering the gaps and inconsistencies in previous measurements, (ulfert-blank_assessing_2022?) points out that DSE construct have to
Creo que debemos hacer una distinción mejor para que se entienda esto (de partida ya estamos usando la abreviación DSE antes de esta parte). Como nos referimos a las anteriores escalas como mediciones de DSE y hasta el momento no eran escalas que en estricto rigor medían la DSE creo que lleva a la confusión. Diría autoeficacia asociada a la tecnología hasta este punto del paper, así quedaría algo más claro, ya que las anteriores escalas no miden lo mismo.
. PISA has a one-dimensional approach, as can be inferred from a single battery consisting of 10 items
Son 14 items en PISA