The increasing inclusion of digital technology (DT) in university education entails the need for teachers to be digitally competent. This need has become even more evident after the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incorporation of DT in education (Crawford et al., 2020). Considering these scenarios, it becomes necessary to strengthen the initial and in-service training of teachers in their digital competence (DC) (Bates, 2015; Esteve-Mon et al., 2020a; Ruè, 2015; UNESCO, 2013). 

According to Krumsvik (2011) Digital Teaching Competence (DTC) is defined as: ‘Digital competence is the teacher/TEs’ proficiency in using ICT in a professional context with good pedagogic-didactic judgement and his or her awareness of its implications for learning strategies and the digital Bildung of pupils and students’(p.44-45).

Although it is a topic that has been worked on for a couple of decades, there is still no unanimous agreement on a definition of DTC. In recent years, multiple models that attempt to conceptualise it, have been developed (Castañeda et al., 2018; Pettersson, 2017).

In order to integrate these models, the European Framework for Digital Competence of Teachers (DigCompEdu) was developed by the Joint Research Centre with the aim of providing a common language and approach for the European area. This model has been taken as a reference for this project. It includes 3 core competences that make up the DTC (Redecker & Punie, 2017):

a) Professional competence: includes the use of DT by teachers in their professional engagement and relationship with the school.

b) Pedagogical competence: which involves the use of DT for the management of digital resources, teaching, learning, assessment methods and feedback.

c) Student competences: Empowering and Facilitating CD in students.

While there has been a large amount of research on DTC, it is worth noting that it has been mostly focused on pre-university education (Durán et al., 2016).  Likewise, research on the level of DTC in higher education teachers has been mostly self-perception assessment, without necessarily contributing value to professional practice (Durán, Prendes & Gutiérrez; 2019).

When reviewing the literature regarding the current level of DTC of european university faculty, some of the conclusions that emerge from the research (Deumal & Guitert, 2015; García et al., 2013; Orozco et al., 2016) are the following: (a) in terms of knowledge and use of DT, the level is medium to high (b) in relation to the incorporation of digital pedagogies the level is mostly low; either due to lack of knowledge of them or because they do not feel prepared to incorporate them into their educational practice (c) the development of their students' DC is low and teachers do not perceive it as their responsibility. In general terms, teachers still do not have an optimum level of DTC in all its component areas.

The aim of this research project is to develop a training proposal to develop the DTC of university teaching staff.

The research questions guiding this project are the following:

- What is the level of DTC of university teaching staff?

- What does the scientific literature say about DTC training for university teachers?

- Are the prototypes designed: relevant, consistent, practical and effective?

- What design principles can be useful for the development of digital teacher education strategies and policies in similar contexts?

The research is carried out at the Universitat Jaume I (UJI) , a Spanish public university that operates on a single campus, with 1,700 teachers and researchers and 16,000 students. This project uses the design-based research methodology in education (Plomp & Nieveen, 2009) which proposes an interventionist, open and participatory way of working, integrating quantitative and qualitative evaluation tools. This methodology proposes solutions to situations that arise from practice, carrying out a systematised innovation process that uses research methods from the social sciences, allowing the advancement of scientific knowledge and obtaining generalisable practices (Collins et al., 2004; Romero-Ariza, 2014). The project is divided into three main phases: (1) Preliminary Research (2) Prototyping stage (3) Assessment phase. During these phases, the quality criteria Relevance, Consistency, Practicality and effectiveness are evaluated. Quantitative and qualitative instruments are used to validate and refine the designed training prototypes and to extract design principles that are transferable to other similar contexts (Plomp & Nieveen, 2009). The instruments to be used are: -Systematic review. -Expert judgement. -Focus groups. -Interviews. -Questionnaires. In the first phase of preliminary research, the following instruments were used. Systematic review: A systematic review of the current state of the art in DTC training for university teachers (Ferreira González et al., 2011) is being carried out in order to delimit the conceptual framework and extract principles for the design of the prototypes. Questionnaires: The results obtained through the DTC evaluation platform (Esteve et al., 2020) were analysed. A self-perception questionnaire based on the DigCompEdu framework was administered through this platform, which has been adapted to the university context and was answered by UJI teaching staff (n=588). Interviews: Semi-structured in-depth interviews (Corbin & Strauss, 2015) were conducted through video calls with teaching, technical and management staff of the university (n=15), to (a) contrast the results obtained in the self-assessment of the teaching staff, (b) evaluate aspects related to the university's digital training policies and (c) assess the possible effects of COVID on the teaching staff's DTC. For their analysis, the videos were coded according to a deductive approach through concepts or codebook (Saldaña, 2015) , using the MAXQDA programme for qualitative analysis.

The preliminary results showed that teaching staff at the UJI have an intermediate self-perceived level of DTC (3.69 out of 5). Regarding the distribution of the DTC areas, professional commitment was the highest score (4.21). The areas related to didactic/pedagogical aspects scored slightly lower: creation and use of digital resources (3.88), teaching and learning (3.74) assessment (3.82). The lowest result was found in the areas related to students: empowering, involving, monitoring students (3.26) and developing their DC (3.19). These results coincide with the literature reviewed; teachers present greater difficulty about the use of DT in pedagogical aspects, as well as the empowerment and DC development of students (Deumal & Guitert, 2015; García et al., 2013; Orozco et al., 2016). With regard to the interviews, teachers are aware of their need to develop 'pedagogical' and 'student development' aspects. Also they show interest in receiving training in these areas. The aspects expressed to be considered in DTC training: (a) Adjusted to the level of competence, (b) applicable to their field of knowledge, (c) accessible for self-training, (e) involving the exchange of good practices with peers (f) consider teachers’ development necessities. All these insights will be taken into account when defining the prototype’s design strategy. This research focuses on the design of a training proposal to develop the DTC of university teaching staff. It expects to respond to situations that arise from teachers' practice, through the design and validation of contextualised training proposals, capable of transforming reality. It is also expected to extract principles that can be extrapolated (Plomp & Nieveen, 2009). Furthermore, relevant knowledge for decision-making in educational communities and policy-making bodies, which will have an impact on: a) Initial and continuous training practices for DTC development. b) Inclusion and efficient use of DTs. c) Improve DC among students.

Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age. Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Castañeda, L., Esteve, F. & Adell, J. (2018) ¿Por qué es necesario repensar la competencia docente para el mundo digital? RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 56(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/red/56/6 Deumal, G., y Guitert, M. (2015). Digital competence in design education. Case Study of BAU Design College of Barcelona (UVic). Revista Latinoamericana De Tecnología Educativa-Relatec, 14(2), 51-65. https://doi.org/10.17398/1695-288X.14.2.51 Durán, M., Gutiérrez, I., & Prendes, M. (2016). Análisis conceptual de modelos de competencia digital del profesorado universitario. RELATEC: Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa, 15(1), 97-114. https://doi.org/10.17398/1695-288X.15.1.97 Esteve-Mon, F.M.; Llopis-Nebot, M.A. & Adell-Segura, J. (2020a). Digital teaching competence of university teachers: A systematic review of the literature. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologías del Aprendizaje, 15(4), 399-406. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2020.3033225 Esteve, F., Llopis, M.A., Viñoles, V., & Adell, J. (2020b). El profesorado universitario en la sociedad digital. Diseño de una plataforma de autoevaluación diagnóstica de su competencia digital docente. In XXIII Congreso Internacional EDUTEC 2020. Universidad de Málaga. https://hdl.handle.net/10630/20345 Garcia, E., Dungay, K., Elbeltagi, I., & Gilmour, N. (2013). An evaluation of the impact of academic staff digital literacy on the use oftechnology: A case study of UK Higher Education. Edulearn13:5th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies(pp. 2042-2051). http://bit.ly/39y23Gv Krumsvik,R. (2011). Digital competence in Norwegian teacher education and schools. Högre Utbildning,1(1) 39-51. http://bit.ly/3pCY4xW Pettersson, F. (2017). On the issues of digital competence in educational contexts – a review of literature. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 1005-1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9649-3 Orozco, G., Cabezas, M., Martínez, F., Delgado, J., & Solís, M. (2016). Determining factors in acceptance of ICT by the University faculty in their teaching practice. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1145/3012430.3012509 Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2009). An introduction to educational design research. Netherlands Institute for curriculum development (SLO). Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770 Ruè, D. (2015). El desarrollo profesional docente en Educación Superior: agenda, referentes y propuestas para su adopción. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 13, 217-236. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2015.5461 UNESCO (2013). Guidelines on adaptation of the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for teachers. UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education (IITE).