7. Teacher digital competences: formal approaches to their development

Natalie Foster

While available hardware and software are critical components of a digital education infrastructure, so are the human resources that operate within that infrastructure: namely teachers and school principals. Teachers are vital “change agents” in school digitalisation processes and digital technologies have the potential to change the nature of their work. For example, learning analytics tools can inform teaching decisions, school curricula are evolving to recognise the importance of developing students’ digital skills, new online communication tools enable interaction with parents and professional collaboration with other teachers, and open educational resources are democratising the availability of digital learning resources on diverse topic areas (Yu, Vidal and Vincent-Lancrin, 2023[1]). Although governments, local municipalities and school leaders can provide and even mandate the use of such tools and applications to teachers, there is no guarantee that they will be used to enhance teaching and learning unless teachers feel empowered and motivated to do so.

The content of teachers’ formal education and training is important for teaching quality and practice. Data from the latest OECD Teaching and Learning International Study (TALIS) conducted in 2018 showed that lower secondary teachers in OECD countries reported lower levels of self-efficacy in teaching using Information and Communications Technology (ICT) compared to other classroom management, instruction and student engagement practices (OECD, 2019[2]). Data also showed that, on average across OECD countries, around 1 in 5 secondary education teachers report the need for further training in this area despite 60% of teachers having participated in professional development on digital education in the past 12 months and despite a general increase in teacher participation in professional development in this area since 2013 (OECD, 2019[2]).

The need for formal training and professional development on teaching using ICT will remain important given the ubiquity of digital technologies and given the proliferation of national digitalisation strategies, including supporting the development of citizens’ digital skills (OECD, 2022[3]). However, digital technologies in education systems are not in themselves a transformative force: they require educators who know how to use them in ways that can strengthen innovative teaching practices and improve learning outcomes. OECD data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) show that simply exposure to digital technologies in education is not associated with improved student learning, highlighting the importance of the mediation and training of teachers (OECD, 2015[4]). Teachers must therefore develop appropriate competences and attitudes towards using digital technologies and integrating them successfully in teaching practices.

Governments can formalise the development of teacher digital competences in several ways, and investing in doing so is a key area of many countries’ digital education policies. This chapter first provides a brief overview of teacher digital competences before examining different approaches and policy levers to fostering their development. Approaches include setting and enforcing standards on digital competences for teachers and students, incentivising teacher professional development on digital education, and creating a wider ecosystem of support for digital education matters for stakeholders.

Digital technologies now extend into all areas of a teacher’s work including teaching and learning, assessment, communicating and collaborating with colleagues and parents, and creating and sharing digital content and resources. Teachers thus need to develop both general digital skills (as everyday users of digital technologies) and teaching-specific digital competences that can support them as educators and professionals in digital environments. Several international frameworks describe the different components of teachers’ digital competences with the aim of assisting national governments to embed relevant digital competences into teacher education (Redecker, 2017[5]; UNESCO, 2018[6]; ISTE, 2017[7]).

One influential framework focusing on the integration of technology in teaching is the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework that identifies three core teacher knowledge domains: 1) understanding how to select and use technology to facilitate student learning (“technological knowledge”); 2) pedagogical decision-making and understanding (“pedagogical knowledge”); and 3) specific content knowledge for a given subject or topic area (“content knowledge”) (Mishra and Koehler, 2006[8]; Koehler, Mishra and Cain, 2013[9]). These core knowledge areas are typically represented in a Venn diagram to emphasise how the overlapping of the three areas results in key combinations of knowledge and skills (Figure 7.1). For example, Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) refers to “knowledge of the existence, components, and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in educational settings, and conversely, knowing how teaching might change as the result of using particular technologies” (Mishra and Koehler, 2006, p. 1028[8]).

The TPACK framework emphasises that the successful integration of technology in teaching uses all three types of knowledge simultaneously, thus requiring teachers to develop complex forms of teacher knowledge. The authors contrast their framework with other approaches that tend to be technocentric, arguing that others overly focus on teachers’ general technology skills while ignoring the complex relationship between technology, content, pedagogy and context (Harris, Mishra and Koehler, 2009[10]).

A recent review of research exploring primary and general secondary teacher preparation for the digital age found that teacher digital competences tend to be framed in three ways: 1) generic digital competence; 2) digital teaching competence; and 3) professional digital competence (Starkey, 2020[11]). Each of these competences are briefly described below. One additional digital competence area relates to technology-specific skills like programming, computational thinking, or graphic design for the purpose of teaching certain subject areas. While the need for capable and skilled teachers in those subject areas is increasing, as reflected in recent changes in student curricula across the world, for the purposes of this chapter we refer primarily to the digital competences required of all general subject teachers when using the umbrella term “teacher digital competences”.

Generic digital competence refers to digital skills that are not specific to teaching or the professional work of a teacher. This body of knowledge is synonymous with the “technological knowledge” component of the TPACK framework and refers to the ability to use hardware and carry out common computer-based practices like using email, searching the Internet, troubleshooting, using standard word-processing and presentation software, and using creative and collaborative technologies (Starkey, 2020[11]). Essentially, generic digital competence is framed as the body of generic knowledge and skills relevant to anyone using a computer for working or learning. OECD data from the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) showed that the share of teachers with low general problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments ranged significantly across OECD countries with available data, from less than 5% of teachers in Australia to 31% of teachers in Israel (OECD, 2019[12]).

Digital teaching competence refers to the ability to integrate digital technology into teaching practices, sometimes also referred to as “digital pedagogies” or “digitally supported teaching methods”, and is most closely aligned to the “technological pedagogical knowledge” area of the TPACK framework. Integrating digital tools into pedagogical practice includes the use of various media, communication and computational tools for teaching and learning activities, developing and using digital assessments, appropriately managing digital environments, and supporting students’ critical, ethical and creative use of ICT for learning (Starkey, 2020[11]). The integration of ICT in teaching practices requires teachers to be able to use technologies in their function as a teacher, critically selecting technologies for specific teaching purposes and facilitating students to learn through and with digital tools to achieve defined learning outcomes.

Professional digital competence is an emerging and broader type of teacher digital competence that is inclusive of all aspects of being a teacher in schooling contexts and education systems where digital technologies are embedded (Starkey, 2020[11]). For example, teachers now commonly use learning management systems to manage and coordinate student learning, which involves aspects that mirror the physical space (e.g. managing student interactions, online resources, student motivation and assessment) as well as those that are unique to the digital space (e.g. managing learning and communication with students beyond the confines of school walls) that must be negotiated within a wider school context. The professional work of being a teacher in increasingly digitised education systems also now includes participating in online communities of learning, engaging in formal and informal professional learning, and communicating with parents and the broader the school community (Tondeur et al., 2017[13]), as well as using data (e.g. analytics about students available via information and learning management systems) to inform their teaching.

To foster, incentivise and support the development of teacher digital competences – understood as the competences that allow teachers to work as modern professionals and as pedagogues – education systems can adopt different approaches and associated policy levers (Figure 7.2). These include:

  • Setting teacher professional standards on digital competences (in collaboration with other relevant stakeholders, such as teacher unions or teacher training programmes) and proactively enforcing standards through teacher certification or evaluation processes, or teacher education provider accreditation processes;

  • Setting standards on the acquisition of student digital competences and monitoring related learning outcomes through student assessment and evaluation;

  • Providing incentives for teachers to participate in relevant professional development activities by recognising digital skills development in career progression, ensuring access to flexible training opportunities, providing financial incentives, and removing traditional barriers to participation; and

  • Creating a wider digital education ecosystem to coordinate school digitalisation initiatives and innovation projects, and support stakeholders to develop teacher digital competences.

Of the 29 OECD countries and jurisdictions that participated in our comparative study, 24 reported that they have national (or central) rules or guidelines on developing teacher digital competences in the context of pre-service or in-service training (or both) (Table 7.1 and Figure 7.3). Rules and guidelines include teacher professional standards, teacher competence frameworks, or other laws or directives governing the teaching profession. Only 5 among the respondent countries and jurisdictions do not have any national rules or guidelines on developing teacher digital competences, although in some cases these may exist at lower levels of government (e.g. central state or regional rules, or just local).

Many OECD countries recognise that digital competences are amongst the fundamental competences required of all teachers and that these should be developed throughout their formal education and training. However, significant differences exist across education systems in terms of how standards on teacher digital competences are defined, set and regulated. These include: 1) the context in which teacher digital competences are expected to be developed (e.g. pre-service or in-service teacher training); 2) how teacher digital competences are defined and organised within applicable rules and guidelines (e.g. broad aspirational statements to specific descriptions of practice); 3) how rules and guidelines are implemented (i.e. the specific policy levers used), including the extent to which they are proactively enforced; and 4) the extent to which teachers’ digital competences are formally evaluated.

In over half of the 24 education systems that define some professional standards on teachers’ digital competences, these are enshrined into national laws for pre-service teachers (15 countries, see Table 7.1). In nearly all cases these laws refer to teachers at all education levels (including VET) and they typically form part of broader regulations describing the minimum standards of practice for trainees to achieve qualified teacher status. In contrast, only three countries have national regulations about the digital competences of in-service teachers; where they do exist, these typically also refer to teachers at all educational levels and form part of broader regulations defining the criteria for systematic teacher evaluations. Most OECD countries tend to provide national guidelines only on the digital competences of in-service teachers or devolve this responsibility to lower levels of government. This may allow greater flexibility for local authorities to define their own priorities and standards for teachers that better respond to their specific needs and contexts.

Setting teacher standards provides important signalling about the desired competences of educators. Their formulation also usually involves a consultative process involving key education stakeholders, including teacher unions and teacher education providers. Including digital competences within teacher professional standards can therefore establish shared expectations and understanding amongst important stakeholders and promote or regulate (in the case of rules) their development. However, high-level rules and guidelines do not always translate into concrete development opportunities in teachers’ formal education and training. The European Commission found that only around half of European education systems formally link rules (where present) on teacher digital competences with the contents of initial teacher education programmes in their countries (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019[14]).

The lack of relevant opportunities for student teachers to develop their digital competences as part of their formal initial education and training is also reflected in OECD TALIS data: in 2018, on average across the OECD, only 56% of lower secondary teachers surveyed had received any pre-service training in the use of ICT for teaching. Although this proportion tended to be significantly higher among more recent teacher cohorts of teacher, in some countries (including Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Iceland, Korea, Norway and Portugal) more than 25% of teachers who had completed their initial training within five years of the survey reported not to have received any training in the use of ICT for teaching (OECD, 2019[2]). Across all OECD countries, less than half of lower secondary teachers reported feeling prepared to use ICT for teaching after completing their initial education or training.

Several reasons might explain the gap between formal rules and guidelines on developing digital competences and the reality of teacher training and classroom practices. In general, directives on professional standards remain broad and high-level, neither imposing a common curriculum for initial teacher education providers or specifying content areas nor a minimum instruction time related to developing digital competences. This, together with the academic freedom of higher education institutions in many countries, mean that teacher education providers often have significant autonomy to shape their course offering and how it should be delivered to student teachers including the extent to which digital competences are a focus of teacher education programmes. In addition, a general lack of systematic evaluation and/or assessment of teacher digital competences in the context of both pre- and in-service teacher education may lead to less attention being paid to developing these skills.

Another reason may stem from the fact that teacher digital competences tend to be addressed in rules and guidelines as one of several transversal competences that should be developed across the whole programme of initial teacher education and throughout teachers’ professional careers. While this is a valid and appropriate aim, it can leave room for ambiguity in how stakeholders understand, develop and evaluate these skills in practice. Some countries have thus complemented broader teacher regulations or standards with detailed competence frameworks that explicitly describe the intended knowledge, skills, attitudes and values of educators. Such documents are intended to further guide stakeholders within the education system including policy makers, initial teacher education and teacher training providers, school leaders and evaluators, and current and prospective teachers (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019[14]).

Some European countries (Austria, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania and Spain) have developed separate teacher digital competence frameworks for all teachers rather than integrating digital competences in more general teacher competence frameworks (see Box 7.1). Often these have been adapted from existing international frameworks describing teacher digital competences, such as DigCompEdu: The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (Redecker, 2017[5]) or UNESCO’s ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (UNESCO, 2018[6]).

Dedicated digital competence frameworks may help to signal teacher digital competences as a priority development area as well as provide more detailed guidance on how to develop them – especially where frameworks include progression models that can map to teacher evaluation and certification processes. A dedicated approach also has the advantage of greater policy agility as new digital innovations continue to emerge (e.g. generative Artificial Intelligence): updating these frameworks does not involve reviewing the entire set of teacher competences. However, separating digital competences from other important teacher competences may give the impression that the former are disconnected from “regular” pedagogical approaches, rather than considered integral to and interconnected with other teacher competences.

Rules and guidelines on teacher professional standards can serve to establish criteria for awarding institutional accreditation to teacher education providers. Formally linking rules and guidelines on teacher digital competences to accreditation processes is one way to balance respecting institutional autonomy with ensuring student teachers have access to opportunities to develop digital competences as part of their pre-service education and training. For example, rules may require education providers to include mandatory or elective courses on digital pedagogies as part of any initial teacher education programme or to focus a minimum number of instruction hours on the topic. This approach to regulating teacher education still allows some flexibility for providers, such as being able to define the exact content, method of delivery, and evaluation of courses. While accreditation does not always guarantee quality in delivery, including teacher digital competences within accreditation criteria ensures that at least some attention will be paid to developing student teachers’ digital competences in their initial teacher education and can promote equal opportunities for student teachers to access formal training on the topic.

Some OECD countries already link standards on teacher digital competences with accreditation processes for teacher education providers. For example, in Lithuania, regulations issued by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport address the mandatory contents of initial teacher education programmes and requirements for developing and certifying the digital competences of teachers and student support specialists (TAR, 2018[18]). In Ireland, the Teaching Council (the national body responsible for initial teacher education accreditation) previously included “ICT in Teaching and Learning” as one of 15 mandatory elements that must be included in all initial teacher education programmes to get accreditation (Eurydice, 2023[19]). In its updated standards, published in 2020, digital skills are considered one of seven “core elements” that should underpin all aspects of all initial teacher education programmes (The Teaching Council, 2020[20]). All existing and new primary and post-primary education programmes submitted to the Council for accreditation must align with the updated standards as of September 2022. Similarly, in Scotland (United Kingdom) and Wales (United Kingdom), guidelines for initial teacher education accreditation specify that programmes should include opportunities for student teachers to enhance their digital literacy skills and practice digitally supported pedagogies (The General Teaching Council for Scotland, 2019[21]; Welsh Government, 2018[22]).

Rules and guidelines on teacher digital competences can also provide criteria for formal evaluation or certification processes – especially when they refer to detailed competence descriptions and progression models. There are several different policy levers that can be implemented to formally evaluate teachers’ digital skills in some capacity. These include formal assessments as part of teacher qualification processes, certification opportunities during pre- or in-service training, or the systematic evaluation of in-service teachers’ competences through external or internal school evaluation.

Integrating formal assessments of digital competences during or at the end of initial teacher education programmes can provide an inherent incentive to teacher education providers and future teachers to develop these skills. However, only a minority of countries include mandatory requirements to assess teachers’ digital competences as part of teacher qualification processes (see Box 7.2). Formal assessments could take different forms, for example via a standardised examination or through obtaining certification that they graduated from a teacher education programme that evaluated those skills. Teacher digital competences might also be formally evaluated as part of teacher trainee practical training requirements (i.e. in their first employment role before transitioning to fully qualified teacher status).

Alternatively, providing prospective teachers with optional certification opportunities during their pre-service training can also incentivise student teachers to develop their digital competences. Although they are not formally assessed as part of teacher qualifications in Denmark, the country does offer a voluntary pedagogical ICT licence (Pædagogisk IT-kørekort) that combines pedagogical knowledge of ICTs and basic ICT skills training. The licence was first implemented for in-service training in the 1990s but was subsequently integrated as a voluntary element into the curriculum of student teachers in teacher education colleges (Rizza, 2011[23]).

Beyond initial teacher education, evaluating or certifying teacher digital competences can serve to identify skills gaps, foster skills improvement, and incentivise the provision of relevant professional development. However, few countries systematically certify the digital competences of in-service teachers. A notable exception is Spain: in 2022, the National Institute of Educational Technologies and Teacher Training (a national education agency) published the updated “Spanish Framework for the Digital Competence of Teachers” for certifying in-service teachers’ digital skills and which defines proficiency levels ranging from A1 (novice) through to C2 (mastery) levels (INTEF, 2022[15]). Each autonomous region in the country has adopted the national framework despite education matters largely being a devolved responsibility. Each region is responsible for implementing its own certification process based on a set of common national procedures that have specific requirements differentiated by proficiency level; all certifications that are issued in the country are thus recognised in all other regions and at the national level (BOE, 2022[24]). For example, certification for levels A1 and A2 may be awarded after any of the following procedures: 1) participation in teacher training activities (with a minimum number of hours and content areas covered); 2) passing a test (that includes questions corresponding to at least 80% of the relevant indicators from the framework); or 3) obtaining a teacher degree specialised in digital technologies. Certification is voluntary for teachers, but each region has committed to certifying at least 80% of in-service primary and secondary teachers before the end of 2025. As a result, some educational authorities have engaged in comprehensive efforts to foster and support the development of teacher digital literacy in their respective autonomous regions and cities (see Box 7.3), including the national Ministry of Education in the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla.

Systematic evaluations of teacher digital competences may be more common than certification, but a further way to promote the development of teacher digital competences is to strengthen their relevance within external and/or internal school evaluation criteria. School evaluation plays an important role in teacher development and classroom practices by incentivising teachers to improve their performance. While specific evaluation procedures vary, schools in most countries tend to undergo some periodic evaluation by public inspection authorities whose reports are usually made publicly available (OECD, 2013[26]; OECD, 2015[27]). An opportunity therefore exists for policy makers and administrators to shape evaluation frameworks to raise standards and target specific areas of school education, including digital education and teacher digital pedagogical competences.

External evaluations and reports are increasingly addressing issues around digital education, including the use of digital technologies for teaching and learning (OECD, 2023[28]). In Slovakia, for example, the State School Inspectorate’s evaluation framework includes the use of digital technologies for teaching as an explicit criterion for the evaluation of education facilities and resources in schools (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015[29]). Likewise in Scotland (United Kingdom), school inspections now include a focus on the effective of digital technology for learning (Scottish Government, 2016[30]). A greater emphasis in school evaluations on certain aspects of teaching using digital technologies may also then be linked to a greater emphasis on these aspects in teacher appraisal and feedback processes; in turn, this can incentivise further changes in teaching practices.

A different approach to fostering teacher digital competences within the broader context of setting standards is to focus on student learning outcomes. Of the 29 OECD countries and jurisdictions that participated in our comparative study, nearly all have national rules and guidelines on developing students’ competences to use and understand digital technologies (Table 7.2 and Figure 7.4). Expecting students to develop digital competences as a core part of their education implies that they should be taught by capable educators with appropriate skills themselves – especially in countries where digital competences are considered a transversal student learning outcome that is the responsibility of all teachers, or where there are no requirements for technology-related courses in the curriculum to be taught by specialist teachers. Notably, more OECD countries and jurisdictions have national rules and guidelines on developing student digital competences than they do for developing teacher digital competences (see Table 7.1 and Figure 7.3 for comparison). Only 3 countries (Mexico, the Netherlands and Türkiye) do not have any national directives on developing student digital competences (although these may nonetheless exist at lower levels of government).

Rules or guidelines on developing students’ digital competences tend to apply to all educational levels, but some countries do not include VET in these provisions. Despite the relative lack of regulations or guidance on digital education in VET, TALIS data show that a significant proportion of upper secondary VET teachers do frequently use digital technologies with their students, and more so than general secondary teachers (OECD, 2021[31]). One reason for this discrepancy may be that when the use of digital technologies is natural to the subject content (such as in VET), their use is integrated into classrooms regardless of whether it is mandated or not. As work environments continue to digitalise, VET teachers need to equip their students with vocational and digital skills to facilitate their transition into the labour force and enhance their adaptability. Innovative technologies like robots, virtual reality and augmented reality, and simulators will also likely become more common in VET in the years to come, and teachers’ effective use of these technologies is therefore important for fostering students’ foundational vocational skills (OECD, 2021[31]). Setting standards on developing student digital skills or specific uses of technology may thus be more relevant in contexts in which doing so may be perceived as optional rather than a necessity.

Approaches vary across countries in terms of how digital competences are integrated into national curricula. In almost all systems, digital competences are recognised as transversal competences that should be integrated and developed across subjects. In effect, this means that in most countries all general education teachers are considered responsible to some extent for developing students’ digital competences – although very few systems formally evaluate students’ digital skills to incentivise teachers (see Box 7.4). In several countries, schools have significant autonomy to decide how to interpret the national curriculum guidelines and integrate digital competences within their educational offering (e.g. as integrated content or as a distinct area of study). Similarly, in federal or devolved countries and jurisdictions, often lower levels of government (e.g. state or regional) will have further rules or guidelines on the curriculum in addition to national directives.

A few systems (including the French Community of Belgium, Hungary, Iceland, Korea and Latvia) do have rules on teaching student digital competences as a distinct subject area in the curriculum in addition to integrating digital competences across all subject areas. For example in England (United Kingdom), digital competences are addressed primarily via the dedicated subject area of computing (which encompasses computer science, ICT and digital literacy), which is a compulsory subject in the national curriculum at both primary and secondary levels (ages 5 to 16 inclusive).1 Students in upper secondary are also able to pursue a (further) computer science qualification that forms part of their qualifications at the end of compulsory schooling. While a distinct subject area approach may be more effective in terms of achieving student outcomes, it is less likely to encourage all teachers to develop their own teacher digital competences as the responsibility for students’ skill development may be transferred primarily to the subject area teachers.

Standards on teacher and student digital competences formally articulate their importance to a variety of education stakeholders and can serve to mandate or incentivise a variety of actors – teacher education providers, schools, and individual teachers – to focus on developing them. However, setting standards is not the only approach to formalising teacher digital competences. In many countries, participation in some form of continuous professional development is a compulsory activity for teachers, either as a general condition for continued employment or for career advancement (OECD, 2016[33]). Continuous professional development is also vital to broaden and deepen teachers’ practical and theoretical knowledge, help them keep up with new research, tools and practices, and respond to students’ changing needs (Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[34]).

Evidence from international surveys suggest that teachers’ participation in relevant training is positively associated with teachers using ICT in their classes more frequently and feeling confident in supporting students with digital technologies (Gil-Flores, Rodríguez-Santero and Torres-Gordillo, 2017[35]; Fraillon et al., 2014[36]; OECD, 2020[37]; Minea-Pic, 2020[38]; European Commission, 2013[39]). TALIS data (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic) also show that, on average across OECD countries, there is a high perceived need for further training in ICT among general secondary education teachers despite relatively high levels of participation in professional development in this area (OECD, 2019[2]). Among the 60% of teachers on average across the OECD who reported engaging in professional development on ICT skills for teaching during the year preceding the TALIS survey, nearly two in 10 (17.6%) reported a high need for further training – a proportion only marginally lower than those who had not participated in any ICT-related training in the same period (Figure 7.5). This shows that a significant proportion of teachers perceive a need for further continuous professional development in this area. Anecdotal evidence during and after the COVID pandemic also confirmed this impression, even though the effects of global school closures and remote learning arguably led teachers to develop their digital skills significantly.

In most systems, educators can choose which professional development activities to engage in; training on ICT and digital pedagogies may therefore be just one of several possibilities available to them. This can make it difficult for countries to accelerate the upskilling of in-service teachers’ digital competences. In Italy, from the current 2023-24 school year onwards, in-service teacher training on digital skills is compulsory in an effort to bring about the large-scale upskilling of its teacher force. Teachers’ participation in relevant trainings must take place outside of their regular teaching hours but costs are covered through a central government fund, and a new dedicated teacher development platform has been developed to deliver online training courses (see Box 7.6 for more). However, there is little evidence to date about the effectiveness of mandating professional development on digital competences for improving teacher practice and agency above other incentive-based approaches. Making professional development on a particular area an obligation requires that quality training opportunities are available and accessible to all educators to avoid exacerbating existing digital divides within the teacher profession, as well as accompanied by adequate funding (OECD, 2019[40]; OECD, 2019[41]). It would also have to be balanced against other areas of teacher training.

According to TALIS data, the second-highest reported barrier to participation in professional development for teachers (48% on average) and school leaders (35% on average) respectively is the lack of sufficient incentives (OECD, 2019[2]). In general, teachers may benefit from different sorts of incentives to participate in professional development activities including financial rewards, reduced teaching hours, competitions that award prizes, additional training hours and additional equipment for the classroom (Wastiau et al., 2013[42]). Beyond these general incentives, other levers may incentivise teachers to develop their digital competences specifically: these include recognising digital skills for career advancement, developing accessible and flexible training content, and combining financial and structural incentives to engage in professional development on digital competences.

Some countries have designed new reward and promotion structures within the teaching profession to reflect educators’ digital skills development, as evidenced through participation in accredited trainings, certification or teacher appraisal. For example, in Croatia, sharing innovative teaching methods or creating digital content are listed as evaluation criteria for primary and secondary school teachers, teaching assistants and school principals (Ministry of Science and Education, 2019[43]). Among other aspects, these criteria determine the allocation of annual awards for teaching excellence and are used to assess educators’ eligibility for career progression (Ministry of Science and Education, 2023[44]).

Some countries have also designed new career pathways that offer both vertical and horizontal opportunities for professional growth related to digital skills development. In the Slovak Republic, teachers can have a career that is both differentiated vertically (e.g. beginning teacher, independent teacher, teacher with first certification, etc.) and horizontally, with the latter enabling them to take on specialist positions such as an ICT coordinator and devote more time to developing skills in their specialist area (OECD, 2019[41]). Similarly in Czechia, teachers can become a dedicated “ICT methodologist” in their school tasked with helping colleagues to integrate digital technologies in their teaching and to create their school’s digital strategy. This role has state-recognised concessions in teaching duties and teachers in the role must complete specific trainings. Several other countries have created “digital ambassador”-type roles that teachers can choose to evolve into to help coordinate and promote digitalisation efforts in their schools.

Digitalisation itself can also offer new opportunities for recognising teachers’ invested time, effort and acquired skills in a range of areas, including their digital competences. New methods and tools, like open badges or micro-credentials, have emerged for certifying and recognising a variety of skills. Micro-credentials enable teachers to choose a specific skill they wish to develop or have recognised, engage in some instruction (often online) and practice activities, gather the evidence underpinning their mastery of the skill (e.g. through e-portfolios), and have it recognised by a reviewer in a credentialing platform (Minea-Pic, 2020[38]). For example, in Spain, the National Institute of Educational Technologies and Teacher Training has developed several self-learning activities that are offered through a mobile application called “EduPills” as a complement to the various other tutored courses, Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) and blended training activities they offer (see Box 7.6). The “EduPills” activities are mapped to the different competence areas of the “Spanish Framework for the Digital Competence of Teachers” (INTEF, 2022[15]) and individuals can store, export and share the digital micro-credential badges they earn via their social networks.

While micro-credentials can provide some external recognition of skills development for motivated teachers, they may not be enough to incentivise the majority teachers to develop their digital competences unless these emerging forms of certification can be recognised as part of formal professional development requirements that matter for career progression and compensation. In the United States, some states have enabled educators to use micro-credentials specifically designed for teachers to fulfil their continuing education and professional development requirements in this way (see Box 7.5).

In addition to providing new certification opportunities, digitalisation can deliver new forms of flexible professional development activities that can potentially reach a greater number of teachers – especially those whose participation in professional development activities typically occurs outside of their normal working hours. Data from the OECD Survey of Adult Skills show that teachers are far more likely to engage in open or distance education outside of their working hours compared to other tertiary-educated workers (OECD, 2017[47]). The online delivery of professional development activities can also be coupled with new opportunities to expand teacher-centred collaborative learning in the virtual space and personalise training content (Minea-Pic, 2020[38]). However, as with any professional development activities, online training content needs to be carefully designed and research on the characteristics of effective online activities such as Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) for teacher professional learning are still emerging (Minea-Pic, 2020[38]).

Many OECD countries do currently support teacher professional learning through integrated professional development platforms (see (Yu, Vidal and Vincent-Lancrin, 2023[1]), Chapter 5, for more information on public MOOCs platforms). Educators can typically use these platforms to access content like online training courses, information resources, MOOCs and webinars on a range of digital education matters. In most cases, these platforms include some content on developing teacher digital competences as part of a broader range of professional development areas – although some countries have developed dedicated platforms exclusively focused on developing teacher digital competences (see Box 7.6). While face-to-face training and activities should remain important components of teachers’ continuous professional development offer, online platforms can provide a flexible and accessible complement.

Strong financial incentives for participating in professional development helps to support teacher autonomy and flexibility. The removal of financial barriers enables teachers to choose to develop the skills they need the most rather than make choices guided by avoiding financial penalty. Some countries allocate a yearly budget to support professional development on digital competences, which can be used to cover the compensation of teachers (either in lost earnings or in training costs) or to incentivise schools with grants to support teacher training in this area. For instance, the ministry in Latvia has subsidised professional development courses on ICT for teachers. Other countries have designated digital education as one of a few priority areas for teacher professional development combined with financial incentives. For example in Italy, prior to mandating professional development on digital skills, the ministry allocated EUR 1.5 billion for educator training in several priority areas including digital education: teachers were given EUR 500 per year via an electronic “Teachers’ Card” to participate in training activities within the designated priority areas and to purchase resources (books, software and hardware, conference tickets, etc.) (OECD, 2017[48]). In New Zealand a similar approach exists but also balances national and local priorities. “Digital fluency” is one of seven national priorities for teacher professional development in both English- and Māori-medium settings that the ministry funds.2 While priority areas are designated nationally, each funding application is evaluated and approved by regional panels to ensure alignment between the diverse needs and contexts of teachers and schools with key system-level challenges.

Financial incentives can also target the institutional level to foster improvements in their educational offering (i.e. for teacher education providers) or enhance their digital infrastructure. One initiative in Germany to enhance the quality of initial teacher training (Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung, 2014-23) and offer more targeted support for specific topics was a funding competition scheme, where universities providing initial teacher education programmes across the country could apply for and receive funding for projects. Following an interim review of the initiative in 2018, a new funding stream for the digitalisation of initial teacher education was introduced for the second phase (2019-2023) (OECD, 2020[49]).

Creating a wider ecosystem of support for digitalisation in education can help to coordinate different efforts amongst the many stakeholders involved in developing teacher digital competences and help to provide more holistic support for teachers to integrate digital technologies into their teaching practices. One clear way that countries have formalised a whole-system approach to developing teacher digital competences is by creating designated national or centralised agencies whose responsibility is to develop policy, coordinate national initiatives and innovation projects, and promote teacher professional learning in the context of digital education (see Box 7.7 and (Dellagnelo, 2023[50]) for further examples).

Dedicated knowledge centres and/or professional learning organisations on digital education can provide visible and specialised focal points for educators wishing to engage in professional development and build their capacity in digital teaching and learning. They can provide access to formal professional development activities (e.g. training courses, certification and evaluation processes) as well as more informal support, such as information resources and informal networks. Specialised institutions can also take ownership of defining, supporting and (where relevant and applicable) enforcing professional standards related to teacher digital competences. Charging such institutions with the mission to develop teacher digital competences and promote quality digital education through both formal and informal measures can help to ringfence funding and resources for digital education, promote good practices, and coordinate various related initiatives at different levels of government.

This may be a particularly effective lever in countries that have highly decentralised education systems, where ensuring the equity of access to digital infrastructure and resources, relevant professional training and development opportunities, and other digitalisation initiatives in education may otherwise be more difficult to achieve. In the United States for example, a highly decentralised education system, the Department of Education’s Office of Educational Technology has created a “digital equity and transformation” pledge that it is using to raise the profile of developing digital competences in teacher education.3 Together with the International Society for Technology in Education, it aims to bring together higher education associations and initial teacher education programmes across the country that share a vision for accelerating change in how to prepare future teachers to be successful in new digital learning environments. By signing the pledge, an education provider can signal their commitment to develop teacher digital competences and expand digital equity and transformation in learning.

In addition to providing a focal point for training and information resources for teachers, in some countries these agencies are responsible for implementing national innovation projects on digitalisation in education. These projects may serve as formal professional learning activities for educators or as broader initiatives to accompany teachers in integrating digital technologies into their classroom practice. For example, in Spain, the National Institute of Educational Technologies and Teacher Training coordinates the country’s “Future Classroom Lab” (Aulas del Futuro) initiative (a project led by the European Schoolnet network but translated into national contexts in 15 countries by local partners), in collaboration with each of the country’s regional ministries and various industry partners. The goal of the project is to promote flexible and easily reconfigurable classroom spaces to encourage teaching and learning through active methodologies and the use of digital technologies. Twenty innovative classrooms are being created for teacher training purposes across the country to give teachers access to different digital tools and technologies (e.g. digital whiteboards, tablet, virtual reality, etc.) in a flexible learning space.4

In Italy, between 2020 and 2022, a similar initiative under the same European Schoolnet project was run as a voluntary professional development activity: 28 “Future Labs”, modelled as future classrooms with innovative environments for robotics, augmented reality and digital fabrication activities were created across the country to provide educators with experiential training on digital teaching methods. Each Future Lab ran its own modified teacher training programme in conjunction with the respective regional teacher training body.5

Wider support initiatives might involve helping teachers to understand and implement new standards or guidelines related to the development of digital competences, such as student curriculum reforms related to digital competences. As new digital content and technologies become integrated in student curricula, and as digital technologies continue to evolve, teachers need support to translate national directives into their classroom practices – especially in systems where student digital competences are expected to be developed across disciplines by all teachers, or where schools have significant autonomy to define their own educational programmes based on broader guidelines. Examples of targeted support initiatives that countries have implemented to support curriculum reform include defining model curriculum frameworks that schools can use, or offering opportunities for schools, teachers and students to participate in projects that support the development of “new” student digital competences at different educational levels (see Box 7.8).

Finally, to further support holistic digitalisation efforts at the school level, some countries have encouraged or mandated schools to develop regular school digitalisation plans or roadmaps. These plans require school leaders to periodically map out the different digitalisation efforts within their schools in the short- or medium-term to facilitate a more coherent planning and implementation of initiatives. These plans can also be combined with school self-evaluation exercises or external school evaluations, and often include a component on the development of digital competences of educators and administrative staff. In most countries where these plans are a requirement or strongly encouraged, specific tools have been developed to facilitate their elaboration by school leaders. For example, school leaders in the Flemish Community of Belgium can access an “ICT policy planner” tool provided by the central Digisprong (“Digital Jump”) Knowledge Centre that guides them through the process and provides a customisable template.6 One of four main ICT policy elements of the template refers to educator competences.

The ubiquity of digital technologies and increasing policy attention on developing student digital competences means that teachers need to be adequately prepared to integrate digital technologies into teaching and learning. Education systems can formalise the development of teacher digital competences through different approaches. These include setting and enforcing professional teacher standards, incentivising professional development, and creating wider support structures for teachers and digital education matters. Various policy levers can help to strengthen the overall effectiveness of each approach, as well as combine to reinforce multiple approaches. For example, professional standards on teacher digital competences can incentivise participation in relevant professional development activities; and wider support structures focused on digital education matters can support the development and monitoring of teacher digital standards, as well as facilitate access to and support for relevant teacher professional development.

Most OECD countries have at least some rules or guidelines about developing teacher digital competences, signalling their importance to teachers and other education stakeholders (e.g. teacher education and teacher training providers) and sometimes enforcing that attention is paid to this topic. However, significant differences exist across countries in terms of how such directives are implemented, and gaps likely exist between the content of teacher digital standards documents and classroom realities. A lack of evaluation and accountability mechanisms, together with unclear expectations on what teacher digital competences are and how they should be developed, may explain these gaps to some extent.

Specific teacher digital standards or competence frameworks can help to provide clear definitions and progression models to guide teacher education and certification processes. Explicitly linking rules and guidelines on developing teacher digital competences to initial teacher education accreditation processes can also ensure that student teachers have relevant opportunities to develop their digital competences as part of their pre-service training, while still affording teacher education providers flexibility and autonomy to define their course content. Education systems could also integrate formal evaluations of teacher digital competences in several ways, including as part of teacher qualification processes (e.g. through competitive/standardised examinations), as an explicit part of teacher trainee evaluations before obtaining fully qualified teacher status, by strengthening the relevance of digital competences in teacher appraisal or external school evaluation criteria, or by creating voluntary or mandatory certification processes.

As digital technology rapidly evolves, incentivising continuous professional development on various aspects of digital education is crucial – especially as it is an area for which there is a high self-reported need amongst teachers across countries (OECD, 2019[2]). Creating strong incentive structures for teachers to engage in developing their digital skills and removing typical barriers to professional development are important goals. These might include new reward and mobility structures within the teaching profession that reflect digital skills, including both vertical (i.e. promotion) and horizontal pathways (e.g. specialised digital roles that come with recognised concessions in teaching responsibilities). Formally recognising digital skills development in other ways, for example through obtaining certification or micro-credentials, can also incentivise motivated teachers to engage in professional development, although such incentives are unlikely to be effective for the wider teacher population unless paired with some formal exemption or fulfilment of professional development obligations that matter for career progression and/or compensation. Facilitating equitable access to relevant professional development content through dedicated platforms, flexible training opportunities (e.g. MOOCs or other hybrid activities) or by providing financial support (e.g. covering training or teacher compensation costs) represent other incentives.

Finally, creating a wider ecosystem approach to supporting the development of student and teacher digital skills can help to coordinate and accelerate digitalisation efforts in a sustainable and equitable way. For example, some countries have created dedicated agencies or teacher knowledge centres that can serve as visible and specialised focal points to coordinate professional development activities and certification processes. These institutions can take charge of implementing whole system initiatives (e.g. curriculum reform, large-scale innovation projects) related to digital education matters. Creating a central body or institution as a focal point for digital education matters may be particularly effective for promoting good practices and equitable access to initiatives in decentralised or federal systems. Other initiatives targeted at the school level, like supporting the use of school digitalisation plans, can also help to engage schools and educators in systematic digitalisation efforts including the development of teacher digital skills.


[25] BOA (2022), “Estrategia Aragonesa de Formación en Competencia Digital Docente Ramón y Cajal 2021-2024”, BOA No. 140, 20/07/22, https://www.cddaragon.es/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Estrategia-en-BOA.pdf.

[24] BOE (2022), Resolución de 1 de julio de 2022, de la Dirección General de Evaluación y Cooperación Territorial, por la que se publica el Acuerdo de la Conferencia Sectorial de Educación sobre la certificación, acreditación y reconocimiento de la competencia digital do, https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2022-11574.

[16] BOE (2007), Orden ECI/3857/2007, de 27 de diciembre, por la que se establecen los requisitos para la verificación de los títulos universitarios oficiales que habiliten para el ejercicio de la profesión de Maestro en Educación Primaria., https://www.boe.es/eli/es/o/2007/12/27/eci3857 (accessed on 22 November 2023).

[17] BOE (2007), Orden ECI/3858/2007, de 27 de diciembre, por la que se establecen los requisitos para la verificación de los títulos universitarios oficiales que habiliten para el ejercicio de las profesiones de Profesor de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria y Bachillerato, https://www.boe.es/eli/es/o/2007/12/27/eci3858 (accessed on 22 November 2023).

[34] Boeskens, L., D. Nusche and M. Yurita (2020), “Policies to support teachers’ continuing professional learning: A conceptual framework and mapping of OECD data”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 235, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/247b7c4d-en.

[45] Brown, D. (2019), Research and Educator Micro-Credentials, Digital Promise, https://digitalpromise.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/researchandeducatormicrocredentials-v1r2.pdf.

[50] Dellagnelo, L. (2023), “The role of support organisations in implementing digital education policies”, in OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023. Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.

[46] DeMonte, J. (2017), Micro-credentials for Teachers: What Three Early Adopter States Have Learned So Far, American Institute for Research, https://openbadges.org/about/. (accessed on 12 October 2020).

[39] European Commission (2013), Survey of Schools: ICT in Education - Benchmarking Access, Use and Attitudes to Technology in Europe’s Schools, Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media (European Commission), Brussels, https://doi.org/10.2759/94499.

[14] European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019), Digital Education at School in Europe, Publications Office of the European Union.

[29] European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2015), Assuring Quality in Education: Policies and Approaches to School Evaluation in Europe, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2797/65355.

[19] Eurydice (2023), “Initial education for teachers working in early childhood and school education”, Ireland, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/ireland/initial-education-teachers-working-early-childhood-and-school (accessed on 12 July 2023).

[36] Fraillon, J.; J. Ainley; W. Schulz; T. Friedman; E. Gebhardt (2014), Preparing for Life in a Digital Age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study International Report, Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg, https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=ict_literacy (accessed on 24 January 2020).

[35] Gil-Flores, J., J. Rodríguez-Santero and J. Torres-Gordillo (2017), “Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 68, pp. 441-449, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.057.

[10] Harris, J., P. Mishra and M. Koehler (2009), “Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration refrained”, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol. 41/4, pp. 393-416, https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536.

[15] INTEF (2022), Spanish Framework for the Digital Competence of Teachers, https://intef.es/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/English-SFDCT_2022.pdf.

[7] ISTE (2017), ISTE Standards for Educators, International Standards for Technology in Education, https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-teachers.

[9] Koehler, M., P. Mishra and W. Cain (2013), “What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?”, Journal of Education, Vol. 193/3, pp. 13-19, https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303.

[38] Minea-Pic, A. (2020), “Innovating teachers’ professional learning through digital technologies”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 237, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/innovating-teachers-professional-learning-through-digital-technologies_3329fae9-en (accessed on 24 February 2021).

[44] Ministry of Science and Education (2023), Rules on the advancement of teachers, professional associates and principals in primary and secondary schools and colleges, https://www.zakon.hr/cms.htm?id=44746 (accessed on 13 April 2023).

[43] Ministry of Science and Education (2019), Rulebook on rewarding teachers, teachers, professional associates and principals in primary and secondary schools and student dormitories, https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2019_05_53_1019.html (accessed on 13 April 2023).

[8] Mishra, P. and M. Koehler (2006), “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge”, Teachers College Record, pp. 1017-1054, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.

[28] OECD (2023), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.

[3] OECD (2022), Assessing National Digital Strategies and their Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/baffceca-en.

[31] OECD (2021), Teachers and Leaders in Vocational Education and Training, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/59d4fbb1-en.

[32] OECD (2020), Education Policy Outlook in Estonia, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9d472195-en.

[49] OECD (2020), Education Policy Outlook in Germany, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/47b795b1-en.

[37] OECD (2020), Making the Most of Technology for Learning and Training in Latin America, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce2b1a62-en.

[12] OECD (2019), OECD Skills Outlook 2019: Thriving in a Digital World, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/df80bc12-en.

[40] OECD (2019), PISA 2021 ICT Framework, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/sitedocument/PISA-2021-ICT-Framework.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2022).

[2] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.

[41] OECD (2019), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en.

[48] OECD (2017), Education Policy Outlook: Italy, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/education/Education-Policy-Outlook-Country-Profile-Italy.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2022).

[47] OECD (2017), Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[33] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/888933932760.

[27] OECD (2015), Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en.

[4] OECD (2015), Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en.

[26] OECD (2013), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.

[5] Redecker, C. (2017), European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2760/159770.

[23] Rizza, C. (2011), “ICT and Initial Teacher Education: National Policies”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 61, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg57kjj5hs8-en.

[30] Scottish Government (2016), Enhancing learning and teaching through the use of digital technology, https://www.gov.scot/publications/enhancing-learning-teaching-through-use-digital-technology/documents/ (accessed on 17 November 2023).

[11] Starkey, L. (2020), “A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 50/1, pp. 37-56, https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2019.1625867.

[18] TAR (2018), Dėl švietimo ir mokslo ministro 2007 m. kovo 29 d. įsakymo Nr. ISAK-555 „Dėl Reikalavimų mokytojų kompiuterinio raštingumo programoms patvirtinimo“ pakeitimo, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/599d489078af11e89188e16a6495e98c (accessed on 22 November 2023).

[21] The General Teaching Council for Scotland (2019), Guidelines for Accreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programmes in Scotland, https://www.gtcs.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ITE-Programme-Accreditation-Guidelines.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2023).

[20] The Teaching Council (2020), Céim: Standards for Initial Teacher Education, https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/en/publications/ite-professional-accreditation/ceim-standards-for-initial-teacher-education.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2023).

[13] Tondeur, J.; K. Aesaert; B. Pynoo; J. van Braak; N. Fraeyman; O. Erstad (2017), “Developing a validated instrument to measure preservice teachers’ ICT competencies: Meeting the demands of the 21st century”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 48/2, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12380.

[6] UNESCO (2018), UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265721.

[42] Wastiau, P.; R. Blamire; C. Kearney; V. Quittre; E. Van de Gaer; C. Monseur (2013), “The use of ICT in education: A survey of schools in Europe”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 48/1, pp. 11-27, https://doi.org/10.1111/EJED.12020.

[22] Welsh Government (2018), Criteria for the accreditation of initial teacher education programmes in Wales, https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-09/criteria-for-the-accreditation-of-initial-teacher-education-programmes-in-wales.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2023).

[1] Yu, J., Q. Vidal and S. Vincent-Lancrin (2023), “Digital teaching and learning resources”, in OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023. Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.


← 1. Computing is compulsory within the English National Curriculum for Local Authority-maintained schools; other schools in England (e.g. academies or free schools) are not required to follow the English National Curriculum.

← 2. https://pld.education.govt.nz/regionally-allocated-pld/pld-priorities/

← 3. https://tech.ed.gov/epp/

← 4. https://auladelfuturo.intef.es/que-es-el-aula-del-futuro/

← 5. https://scuoladigitale.istruzione.it/iniziative-formaz/future-labs/

← 6. https://www.vlaanderen.be/kenniscentrum-digisprong/tools/ict-beleidsplanner

Legal and rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD 2023

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at https://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.