One of the main challenges of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is the development of the teaching digital competence (TDC) of their academic staff.  TDC development has been on the European agenda for at least a decade and several frameworks and initiatives have arisen to address it. One example that stands out is the DigCompEdu framework developed by the Joint Research Center of the European Commission to generate a common understanding of what TDC is (Redecker, 2017).  The HEIs, for their part, have started to develop multiple digitisation strategies and plans to promote it (Castañeda et al., 2023). However, despite these efforts, the COVID-19 pandemic evidenced that there is still a gap, particularly in the pedagogical aspects of this competence. This is not surprising, given the lack of implementation of evidence-based initiatives that effectively address it (Castañeda, et al., 2023). The development of this competency is a complex process that requires approaches that go beyond the individual perspective, which focuses exclusively on teacher training (Coles, et al.,2020). For this competence to be deployed, it is necessary to generate the institutional conditions that enable it (Esteve et al., 2022).

This paper is part of a research project with the aim of designing a proposal on what a HEI could do to develop the TDC of its teaching staff. This project is carried out at a Spanish public University with about 1700 academic staff. We have designed and iterated the prototypes with different stakeholders during 2021 – 2022 and this prototype has been validated in the local Spanish context in a satisfactory way (Viñoles-Cosentino et al., 2021; Viñoles-Cosentino et al., 2022).

The prototype is structured in 3 main axes: Policy level, Training level and Communication level (Esteve et al., 2022).

Among the aspects that stand out in the policy level: It has been a participatory process, involving groups of teachers, technical experts in teacher training and university managers at all stages: from the diagnosis to the evaluation of the prototypes. Thus, different levels (macro/micro) and perspectives of the main actors involved have been considered (Hostins & Rochadel, 2019). A framework (DigCompEdu) has been integrated to serve as a guide (Redecker, 2017). In addition, the strategic documents have been reviewed and aligned with the digitisation plan and the DigCompEdu framework (Viñoles-Cosentino et al., 2021).

At training level: Broaden the offer to provide open, accessible, flexible courses with different levels of progression (basic, intermediate, advanced). Training topics aligned with teaching needs, taking as a reference the areas of the DigCompEdu framework. Creation of an introductory course on TDC to guide and serve as an umbrella for the training pathways (Viñoles-Cosentino et al., 2022).

At communication level: Working with aspects of building language around TDC and the institutional approach to it, to ensure that the strategy is understood and disseminated to all the actors (Century & Cassata, 2016). Design and deliver of an awareness-raising course on TDC focused on working on attitudinal aspects, beliefs, and knowledge on the subject. A platform to centralise communication and as a space for the exchange of teaching experiences (Spillane et al., 2002).

In this last phase, the objective is to evaluate the prototype proposal and preliminary design principles in the international context.

The Project has been developed with the Design Based Research (DBR) methodology. A study carried out with the DBR methodology is characterized as a systematic process for the design, development and evaluation that intends to give a concrete answer to a complex reality (McKenney & Reeves, 2018). This type of study is divided into three phases: (1) preliminary research phase; (2) development and prototyping phase - in which the different prototypes are elaborated, revised and improved; and (3) final evaluation phase (Plomp & Nieveen, 2009). In this paper, the work presented is the last phase, corresponding to the final evaluation. To carry out this evaluation, an international validation of the prototype was developed. A meeting was held with educational technology experts (N=8) from a Digital Education Centre at a Danish university. The expert session was attended by 2 managers (Director of the centre and Project manager of the university's digital plan), 3 postdocs (research and teacher training), 1 associate professor, 1 research assistant and 1 PhD student. The evaluation was carried out by the aforementioned experts through the organization of a focus group in which both the prototype and the design principles obtained at the end of the development and prototyping phase (the previous phase of the DBR methodology) were analysed. The criteria taken as a reference in this process are: • Relevance - Is the proposal necessary/relevant for this context? • Consistency - Is the proposal logically and coherently designed? • Practicality - Can the prototype be realistically applied in your context? • Effectiveness - Does the intervention deliver the expected results (promoting the development of TDC) in the context for which it was designed (academic staff)? For the analysis, the session was recorded, transcribed and coded using a concept-based deductive approach based on the research questions (Saldaña, 2015). Verbatim excerpts were extracted to reflect the participants' perspective on the topics presented. The results are presented through a narrative analysis, accompanied by participants quotations.

Experts agreed that the prototype meets the quality criteria of being relevant, consistent, and effective. On practicality, context-specific adjustments would be necessary, however they agreed that this was covered in the proposed design principles. Regarding the design principles, the main insights are: 1. Design institutional and multi-level strategies (Dearing & Kee, 2012). They considered appropriate to address the complexity of the process by deploying strategic actions at macro/micro level. “Working at different levels helps us take concrete actions, maintaining complexity but moving forward without oversimplification.” 2. Create a link between the institutional strategy and teaching practice (Century & Cassata, 2016). The relevance to ensure that strategies permeate and not remain on paper was highlighted. “The link between the macro-level strategy and the teaching practice is key. There are institutional dynamics beyond a static policy that we need to consider to make things happen.” 3. Build meta-language around digital competences (Spillane et al., 2002). The use of an existing and extended framework (DigCompEdu) as a basis was positively valued. “It is important to work on the construction of the metalanguage, but sometimes a lot of time is wasted trying to define and agree, ending in fruitless discussions. Having an extended framework that can be adapted facilitates the work.” 4. Consider situated and contextualised approaches (Heimans, 2012). The relevance of strategic approaches adapted to the culture and organisational differences of the university was noted. "From one university to another there are organisational and cultural differences, the structure is horizontal, decentralised, with several campuses and little connection between them". These results complete a new iteration of the TDC improvement proposal from an institutional perspective. Having an international and European vision is enriching in order to review and consolidate the key aspects that can be transferable to other HE institutions.

Castañeda, L., Viñoles, V., Concannon, F., Pedersen, A., Al-Hmiedat P. & Lobato, N. (2023). The CUTE CANVAS: developing a design tool for planning strategic actions for institutional of digital competencies. Journal of Decision Systems, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2023.2167274 Coles, S., Martin, F., Polly, D. & Wang, C. (2020). Supporting the digital professor: Information, training, and support. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13(2), 633-648. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2019-0236 Century, J., & Cassata, A. (2016). Implementation Research: Finding Common Ground on What, How, Why, Where, and Who. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 169-215. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16665332 Dearing, J. W., & Kee, K. F. (2012). Historical roots of dissemination science. In R. Brownson, G. Colditz, & E. Proctor (Eds.), Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice (pp. 55–71). Oxford. Esteve-Mon, F. M., Postigo-Fuentes, A. Y., & Castañeda, L. (2022). A strategic approach of the crucial elements for the implementation of digital tools and processes in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 00, 1– 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12411 Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Román-Graván, P., Montenegro-Rueda, M., López-Meneses, E., & Fernández-Cerero, J. (2021). Digital teaching competence in higher education: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 11(11), 689. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110689 Heimans, S. (2014). Education policy enactment research: disrupting continuities. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(2), 307-316, https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2013.832566 Hostins, R. C. L., & Rochadel, O. (2019). Stephen Ball's contributions to the education policies. Revista on Line de Política e Gestão Educacional, 23(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.22633/rpge.v23i1.11947 McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2018). Conducting Educational Design Research. Routledge. Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2009). An introduction to educational design research. Netherlands Institute for curriculum development (SLO). Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu. JRC Research Reports, Joint Research Centre. Saldaña, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387 Viñoles-Cosentino, V., Esteve-Mon, F.M., & Sánchez-Caballé, A. (2021). Validación de un prototipo de propuesta institucional para la mejora de la competencia digital docente en el profesorado universitario. XXIV Congreso Internacional de Tecnología Educativa EDUTEC2021, Buenos Aires. Viñoles-Cosentino, V., Llopis-Nebot, M.A., Sánchez-Caballé, A. & Esteve-Mon, F.M. (2022). Diseño de una propuesta formativa para desarrollar la competencia digital docente en el ámbito universitario. Jornadas Internacionales Universitarias de Tecnología Educativa, Valencia. This communication is part of a research project funded by the Dávalos-Fletcher Foundation in 2021.