Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio
logo

Artículos de Investigación

Vol. 6 Núm. 11 (2026): Revista Simón Rodríguez

Competencias digitales docentes y rendimiento académico secundario: Mediadores contextuales

Digital teaching skills and secondary school academic performance: Contextual mediators
Publicado
2026-03-11

La educación secundaria en Latinoamérica enfrenta desafíos significativos en rendimiento académico, especialmente en contextos de desigualdad. Las competencias digitales docentes emergen como un factor potencialmente transformador, aunque su efectividad depende de condiciones contextuales específicas. El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo analizar la relación entre las competencias digitales de docentes de educación secundaria y el rendimiento académico de sus estudiantes en Perú, identificando las variables contextuales que actúan como mediadores en esta asociación. Se utilizó un diseño mixto secuencial, aplicando cuestionarios a 287 docentes y 2,847 estudiantes, realizando entrevistas y grupos focales. Los resultados demuestran que el efecto directo de las competencias digitales en el rendimiento (β = 0.43, p < 0.001) se vuelve no significativo al considerar mediadores contextuales: infraestructura tecnológica (12.3%), capacitación docente (10.5%) y características socioeconómicas del estudiantado (8.8%). Se concluye que la efectividad de la educación digital depende de la orquestación sistémica de múltiples factores contextuales, no solo de las competencias docentes.

Secondary education in Latin America faces significant academic performance challenges, particularly in contexts of inequality. Digital teaching competencies emerge as a potentially transformative factor, although their effectiveness depends on specific contextual conditions. This study aimed to analyze the relationship between digital competencies of secondary education teachers and their students' academic performance in Peru, identifying contextual variables that mediate this association. A sequential mixed-methods design was employed, administering questionnaires to 287 teachers and 2,847 students, conducting interviews and focus groups. Results demonstrate that the direct effect of digital competencies on performance (β = 0.43, p < 0.001) becomes non-significant when considering contextual mediators: technological infrastructure (12.3%), teacher training (10.5%), and students' socioeconomic characteristics (8.8%). It is concluded that the effectiveness of digital education depends on the systemic orchestration of multiple contextual factors, not solely on teaching competencies.

Número:
Vol. 6 Núm. 11 (2026): Revista Simón Rodríguez
Sección:
Artículos de Investigación

Referencias

  1. Asongu, S. A., y Osei, M. K. (2017). Determinants of mobile phone penetration: A comparative study of Sub-Saharan Africa and developing Asia. Comparative Economic Studies, 59(3), 424-448. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41294-017-0028-2
  2. Balanskat, A., y Blamire, R. (2021). Digital competence in European schools: Research insights from large-scale surveys and policy actions in limited-resource contexts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 1421-1441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09994-6
  3. Baldwin, T. T., y Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x
  4. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/human-capital-theoretical-and-empirical-analysis-special-referenc
  5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674224575
  6. Braun, V., y Clarke, V. (2020). Thematic analysis. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57-71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000155-004
  7. Creswell, J. W., y Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/designing-and-conducting-mixed-methods-research/book241842
  8. Desimone, L. M., y Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers' professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, and Education, 7(2), 252-263. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i2.519
  9. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press. https://www.tcpress.com/the-new-meaning-of-educational-change-9780807742916
  10. Gough, D., Oliver, S., y Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/an-introduction-to-systematic-reviews/book240207
  11. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
  12. Higgins, J. P., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (6.0 ed.). Cochrane Collaboration. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
  13. Jimoyiannis, A. (2023). Technology integration in primary and secondary education: Teacher education practices and effectiveness. Computers & Education, 156, 103927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103927
  14. König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. J., y Glutsch, N. (2022). Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closures: Learning loss and stress of prospective teachers. Journal for Educational Research Online, 14(2), 23-70. https://doi.org/10.31244/jero.2022.02.02
  15. Liang, J. C., Wu, S., y Tsai, C. C. (2023). Beliefs about learning from the internet, online self-regulated learning strategies, and academic performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(4), 286-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1814258
  16. Ministerio de Educación del Perú (MINEDU). (2022). Estadísticas de la calidad educativa: Evaluaciones nacionales 2022. Unidad de Estadística Educativa. http://escale.minedu.gob.pe/
  17. Mishra, P., y 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
  18. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
  19. Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity Press. https://www.politybooks.com/bookdetail?book_slug=should-robots-replace-teachers--9781509525409
  20. Tondeur, J., Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit, A. (2022). Preparing beginning teachers for technology integration in education: A systematic review of research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 8441-8474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10865-w
  21. UNESCO. (2021). Who are the teachers and what do they do? Characteristics and conditions of service of secondary education teachers. UNESCO Institute for Statistics & OECD Publishing. https://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/teachers
  22. Van Deursen, A. J., y van Dijk, J. A. (2019). The first-level digital divide and the second-level digital divide: A literature review. International Journal of Communication, 13, 2285-2311. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/8832
  23. Warschauer, M., y Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179-225. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X09349791
  24. Witte, J. C., y Rogoff, S. E. (2002). Digital divide: A discussion. In Internet and society (pp. 1-23). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608245.n19