1 Introduction
Widespread adoption of digital technologies is reshaping the way industries operate and placing new demands on education systems. Teachers are key implementers of educational reforms and policies, and their professional competencies—particularly their digital literacy—are critical factors influencing educational quality and the effectiveness of talent development. A UNESCO framework proposes that teacher professional development should progress from the mastery of basic technologies to higher-level teaching refinement and innovation (
UNESCO, 2026). In China, a series of policies introduced in recent years have consistently emphasized the enhancement of teachers’ digital literacy to promote the deep integration of digital technology into education. However, the digital literacy requirements faced by teachers in different types of education vary, and the unique characteristics of vocational education warrant particular attention.
As a vital bridge connecting education and industry, vocational education plays a pivotal role in cultivating specialized skills and competencies relevant to specific occupations (
Billett, 2011). Vocational education emphasizes the deep integration of knowledge, skills, and real-world work scenarios, and teachers must not only possess a solid foundation in professional skills but also continuously keep pace with changes in industrial technologies and production methods. In addition, the pace of industrial technological iteration and digital transformation often outstrips the renewal of academic knowledge, and rapid transformations in industrial structures have led to an increasing demand for technically skilled professionals with digital literacy (
Jia & Huang, 2023). Compared with teachers in general education, vocational education teachers face pressure from more frequent and complex technological advances. They must keep pace with the continuous iteration of industrial technologies while also adapting to changes in digital teaching methods (
Ismail et al., 2025). This has led to an increasing emphasis on the development of digital literacy among vocational education teachers—specifically, cultivating their ability to deeply integrate digital technologies into their professional fields and use them to support students’ career development (
Delcker & Ifenthaler, 2022). Overall, the level of digital literacy among higher vocational education teachers not only influences their individual professional development but also largely determines the actual progress of digital transformation in vocational education.
In recent years, domestic and international scholars have begun to focus on the development of digital literacy among vocational education teachers and have conducted relevant research. Studies have concentrated on conceptual frameworks for teachers’ digital literacy (
Lahn & Berntsen, 2023;
Kholmukhamedov & Olimov, 2026) and evaluation indicators (
Wannapiroon et al., 2022), as well as descriptive analyses based on questionnaire data (
Saripudin et al., 2021). However, there remains a lack of systematic characterization based on large-scale data regarding the structural characteristics of digital literacy among higher vocational education teachers and the differences among various groups.
Accordingly, this study focuses on higher vocational education teachers. Using questionnaires, we conducted a survey of full-time teachers from 30 higher vocational colleges in a particular province in China, yielding 6,957 valid responses. The aim was to identify the current status of their digital literacy development and consequently propose targeted recommendations for improvement to accelerate the digital transformation of vocational education. The specific research questions were as follows:
Research Question 1: What is the overall level of digital literacy among teachers at higher vocational colleges? What are its characteristics across the various subdimensions, and what are the statistical correlations among these dimensions?
Research Question 2: What differences in digital literacy levels exist among teachers based on gender, years of teaching experience, academic qualification, professional title, and institution type?
2 Literature Review
2.1 Frameworks of Digital Literacy for Vocational College Teachers
Given the foundational role of the teacher digital literacy framework in guiding and supporting the development of digital literacy among vocational education teachers, existing research has explored this framework from various perspectives, focusing on its structural composition, dimension design, and applicability. Current studies primarily rely on general frameworks to analyze the digital literacy of vocational education teachers, with the most commonly used being China’s education industry standard,
Digital Literacy of Teachers (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2022), and the European Digital Competence Framework (DigComp) series of documents (
Cosgrove & Cachia, 2025). In terms of applying a framework, Rahmawati et al. (
2022) designed a digital literacy questionnaire for vocational education teachers based on the European DigComp for Educators (DigCompEdu) to assess overall proficiency levels.
Deng and Zhao (2025) integrated China’s
Digital Literacy of Teachers standard with the conceptual definitions of digital literacy for vocational education teachers to develop a tool for evaluating their digital literacy levels. Beyond using general frameworks, some scholars have attempted to make localized adjustments to existing frameworks to accommodate the characteristics of vocational education. For example, Sanchez-Prieto et al. (
2020) expanded the five-dimensional digital teaching competency framework proposed by the Spanish National Institute for Educational Technology and Teacher Training by adding a dimension of “digital tool application competency” to more accurately reflect the technical application characteristics of teachers in dual-system vocational education. However, a systematic review by Wu et al. (
2025) revealed that there remains a shortage of systematic competency frameworks specifically tailored to vocational education contexts. Existing research has further identified that the digital literacy of higher vocational college teachers is characterized by professionalism and uniqueness that distinguish it from the digital literacy of teachers in general education (
Wang et al., 2023). This suggests that the design of a digital literacy framework for higher vocational education teachers should fully take into account the contextual characteristics and pedagogical logic inherent in vocational education.
2.2 Digital Literacy Characteristics of Vocational College Teachers
Existing research has shown that vocational education teachers’ overall digital literacy remains in need of considerable improvement (
Wu et al., 2025). Moreover, Sanchez-Prieto et al. (
2020) used a questionnaire survey to find that vocational education teachers require further enhancement of their abilities concerning digital resource communication and collaboration as well as digital content creation.
In terms of group differences, age and years of teaching experience are significant factors that influence vocational teachers’ digital literacy, with younger teachers generally possessing higher digital literacy (
Saripudin et al., 2021). An online survey based on DigCompEdu also showed generational differences within the vocational education teaching population. Younger teachers and those with fewer than 10 years of teaching experience showed slightly higher levels of digital literacy in teaching compared with other groups (
Burns & Kanninen, 2023). In the Chinese context, Xin et al. (
2024) developed a digital literacy evaluation system for vocational education teachers and conducted an empirical survey of 2,514 teachers. They found that individual background variables, such as years of teaching experience, professional title, and academic qualification, significantly influenced teachers’ digital literacy levels.
Although some evidence has been gathered regarding overall levels of digital literacy, as well as group differences, two points warrant attention. First, systematic descriptions of the specific manifestations of each dimension of digital literacy are lacking, with existing findings largely confined to overall levels or single dimensions, such as digital application. Second, conclusions regarding group differences are often based on small or medium-sized samples and require validation through larger-scale data.
3 Methodology
3.1 Sample Data
This study conducted an online questionnaire survey targeting teachers from 30 higher vocational colleges in a particular province of China. The questionnaire was disseminated through institutional contacts and teacher communication networks within the participating institutions. Participation was voluntary, and all teachers were informed of the survey objectives and ethical requirements before completing the questionnaire. Following data collection, several quality-control procedures were applied to improve data reliability. Questionnaires with a high concentration of identical responses or obvious regular response patterns were excluded. In addition, incomplete questionnaires, as well as those with unusually short completion times, were removed. A total of 6,957 valid responses were retained for analysis.
The sample composition is shown in Table 1. Female teachers accounted for two-thirds of the sample; teaching experience was concentrated primarily among teachers with 11–20 years of experience and those with fewer than 6 years; most participants held master’s or bachelor’s degrees, with 98.56% holding a bachelor’s degree or higher; and 83.40% of the participating teachers were from non-Double High-level institutions—that is, institutions that did not meet both Double High criteria.
3.2 Instruments
The questionnaire consisted of two parts. Part 1 collected basic information about teachers, including gender, years of teaching experience, professional title, academic qualification, and institution type. Part 2 comprised a digital literacy evaluation tool for teachers in higher vocational colleges. The tool was adapted from the information literacy assessment tool developed by Zhou et al. (
2020) and subsequently revised in accordance with China’s education industry standard,
Digital Literacy of Teachers (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2022). It was further contextualized for higher vocational education and organized around five dimensions: digital awareness (AW), digital knowledge and skills (KN), digital application (AP), digital social responsibility (DSR), and professional development (DE). These dimensions represent relatively independent competency domains within the teacher digital literacy framework. The tool employed a scenario-based item design, with all items drawn from authentic vocational education teaching scenarios. The definitions and numbers of items for each dimension are presented in Table 2.
This evaluation tool has been used regularly in practical research. Based on the vocational education ecosystem and teacher development needs, the wording of some items has been optimized, and their contexts revised, while the overall dimensional structure has remained stable. In terms of reliability, the Cronbach’s α is 0.876, indicating that the evaluation tool demonstrates high internal consistency and stability. Regarding validity, experts have regularly convened to review the content validity of newly added or revised items, and multiple rounds of revisions have been conducted based on teacher feedback collected through small-scale pilot tests. Statistical tests show that the KMO value is 0.946, and Bartlett’s sphericity test is significant (χ2 = 51,512.925, df = 561, p < 0.001). In addition, the difficulty coefficient is 0.62 and the discrimination coefficient is 0.44, indicating that the evaluation tool possesses moderate difficulty and good discriminatory power. These statistical indicators suggest that the evaluation tool demonstrates satisfactory internal consistency, content validity, and suitability for subsequent statistical analysis.
Regarding score calculation, all item responses were transformed into standardized scores ranging from 0 to 100. For single-choice items, full credit (100 points) was assigned to the correct or most appropriate option, while other options received partial or zero scores depending on their level of alignment with the competency criteria. For multiple-choice items, scores were assigned based on the completeness and correctness of selected options, with full credit awarded only when all correct options were selected, and partial credit given for partially correct responses according to predefined scoring rules. Indicator weights were determined using a combined subjective–objective weighting method, and the total digital literacy score for teachers and scores for each dimension were calculated using a linear weighting method. The calculation formula is as follows:
where TDL represents the teacher’s digital literacy development score (full score = 100); i, j, and l denote the first-, second-, and third-level indicators, respectively; n, m, and k represent the corresponding numbers of indicators at each level; denote the weights of indicators at different hierarchical levels; and represents the item score corresponding to each third-level indicator.
3.3 Data Analysis
All statistical analyses in this study were performed using SPSS 26.0.
To address Research Question 1, which concerns the overall level and dimensional performance of digital literacy among vocational college teachers, the study employed descriptive statistical methods to calculate the mean and standard deviation of scores for each dimension, followed by the calculation of Pearson correlation coefficients between dimensions to examine their interrelationships.
To address Research Question 2, which concerns disparities in digital literacy among teachers of different genders, teaching experience, professional titles, educational backgrounds, and institutional types, the study employed independent-samples t-tests (t) and one-way ANOVA (F) for intergroup comparisons. Cohen’s d or η2 was reported as the effect size to quantify the magnitude of these differences.
4 Results
4.1 Structural Characteristics of Digital Literacy Among Higher Vocational College Teachers
4.1.1 Overall Level of Digital Literacy Development
The overall digital literacy of teachers at the surveyed higher vocational colleges was at a moderately high level (mean score = 56.93 out of 100). Given that the theoretical midpoint of the questionnaire was 50, the observed score exceeded the midpoint and therefore indicated a moderately high level of digital literacy, although disparities existed across different dimensions, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Teachers demonstrated relatively balanced and overall superior performance across the AW, AP, and DSR dimensions. The KN dimension had the lowest score and the widest range, indicating a clear gap between high and low performers. This may be related to differences in the number of items and content characteristics across the dimensions. In addition, the DE dimension also scored relatively low, requiring improvement. The specific characteristics of teachers’ digital literacy across the five dimensions were as follows:
(1) Consciousness structure characterized by strong willingness and weak initiative. The digital awareness of teachers at higher vocational colleges refers to their proactive engagement in digital activities within the context of educational digital transformation. It is a complex psychological construct encompassing cognitive understanding, affective disposition, and volitional beliefs. In this dimension, teachers as a group were at a relatively high level (with an average score of 64.29). Teachers’ specific manifestations are shown in Figure 2. The overall development pattern showed strong willingness but weak initiative, and their digital cognition primarily remained at the level of instructional practices. Over 80% of teachers recognized the role of technology in driving educational digital transformation and the challenges it poses to teaching methodologies. However, their understanding of the potential risks associated with digital education remained limited, with only approximately half recognizing the potential ethical issues associated with technology. Furthermore, merely 10.41% of teachers anticipated systematic professional training, and their proactive adoption of digital technologies required further enhancement.
(2) Skill orientation prioritizing application over principles. The digital technology knowledge and skills of teachers at higher vocational colleges refer to their understanding of and proficiency in digital technology principles, operational methods, and resource-selection strategies for teaching and professional practice. They provide a crucial foundation for achieving high-quality digital teaching. The results of the survey indicated that this dimension received the lowest score, making it the primary weakness in the digital literacy framework of teachers at higher vocational colleges, with an average score of 35.39. The specific manifestations of teachers’ digital skills are shown in Figure 3. For most teachers, digital skills were primarily reflected in the direct use of teaching tools and resources. Over 70% of teachers were familiar with digital hardware and capable of solving issues encountered with software applications. However, they lacked understanding of the underlying principles of technology and resource selection strategies, and fewer than 35% could distinguish among emerging technologies and select appropriate digital resources. Overall, their skill profile exhibited a tendency to prioritize practical application over theoretical principles.
(3) Strong application focus but weak data analysis. The digital application of teachers at higher vocational colleges refers to their overall ability to use digital technologies in teaching, assessment, research, and student development to optimize instructional design, enhance teaching quality, and promote personalized learning and collaborative education. This dimension reflects teachers’ proficiency in translating digital concepts into teaching practices. In this dimension, teachers, as a group, were at a relatively high level, with an average score of 62.74. Teachers’ specific manifestations are shown in Figure 4. The survey findings revealed that over 70% of teachers could develop tailored online learning resources based on students’ learning needs and utilize digital technologies to create blended learning environments. This demonstrates that most teachers had moved beyond merely utilizing existing digital resources and were progressively advancing toward higher-level activities, such as resource creation and advanced application. However, more than half of the teachers still relied on traditional data collection methods, such as student peer evaluations, while fewer than half used data-analysis tools and selected appropriate data-analysis models. Teachers’ capabilities in conducting precise, data-driven teaching and learning still need to be improved.
(4) Strong sense of legal ethics and safety awareness. The digital social responsibility of teachers at higher vocational colleges refers to their awareness and adherence to legal and ethical norms, safeguarding cybersecurity and information security, and promoting positive values within the digital environment. Overall, teachers performed well in this dimension, with an average score of 69.13. Specific scores are shown in Figure 5. Over 90% of teachers used the internet in accordance with legal regulations, while more than 85% respected others’ intellectual property rights, avoided casually reposting others’ resources, avoided inappropriate or sensitive content, and possessed strong media literacy and security awareness. However, a small number remained unaware of the risks associated with information theft, with over one-fifth directly using common personal information—that is, information easily accessible to others—as passwords.
(5) Emphasis on learning and reflection over research and innovation. The professional development of teachers at higher vocational colleges refers to their capacity for and practice of continuous learning, reflection, and exploration of new approaches to teaching innovation and research based on educational and teaching practices in a digital environment. Teachers were at an intermediate level in this dimension, with an average score of 53.26. Specific scores are shown in Figure 6. Although over 90% of teachers used digital technology resources for continuous learning and more than 80% used classroom recordings and student feedback to reflect on and address their shortcomings, focusing on enhancing their professional expertise and teaching skills, overall teacher engagement in digital teaching research and innovation remained low. Approximately one-quarter of teachers had not explored digital teaching innovations, and 19.58% had not participated in online professional development activities. Overall, the professional development of higher vocational college teachers tended to prioritize learning and reflection over research and innovation. Teachers focused more on immediate improvements and on optimizing effectiveness in teaching practices, while systematic teaching research and innovative practices remained relatively weak.
4.1.2 Correlation Analysis of the Five Dimensions of Teachers’ Digital Literacy
All five primary dimensions of teachers’ digital literacy exhibited significant contemporaneous correlations (p < 0.01), indicating that the dimensions were statistically interrelated at the time of measurement. This reflects an overall consistency of teachers’ digital literacy across cognition, competency, practice, and value dimensions. The correlation analysis results are presented in Table 3.
Correlation analysis revealed moderate to strong positive correlations among the four dimensions—AW, AP, DSR, and DE—indicating close interrelationships. AW showed a high correlation with AP (r = 0.539), suggesting a positive relationship between teachers’ awareness and willingness to adopt digital transformation and their actual use of digital technologies in teaching. AP exhibited moderate to strong correlations with DSR (r = 0.652) and DE (r = 0.515), indicating contemporaneous associations between digital application and the two dimensions. In contrast, KN demonstrated generally weak correlations with other dimensions: only marginal associations with AW (r = 0.211), AP (r = 0.249), DSR (r = 0.180), and DE (r = 0.146). This result may reflect a divergence in knowledge levels among teachers. Some teachers lacked sufficient mastery of the fundamental principles of technology and resource selection strategies. Coupled with the rapid technological advances in vocational education, this may result in insufficient alignment among knowledge, concepts, and practical application. Therefore, it is essential to enhance the synergistic development of the knowledge dimension alongside other dimensions in cultivating teachers’ digital literacy, fostering an organic integration of technological principles, teaching methodologies, and ethical awareness.
4.2 Group Differences in Digital Literacy Among the Surveyed Teachers
To examine the relationship between demographic variables and teachers’ digital literacy, this study reports both statistical significance and effect sizes based on a large sample (N = 6,957). The results indicate that gender, years of teaching experience, and academic qualification were all statistically significantly associated with teachers’ digital literacy (p < 0.001). However, the effect sizes were generally small, suggesting that demographic variables had limited explanatory power regarding teachers’ digital literacy.
Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics and intergroup difference analyses of digital literacy scores among teachers at higher vocational colleges across various demographic variables, including mean values, standard deviations, difference test statistics, significance levels, post hoc comparison results, and effect sizes for each group. Overall, female teachers, those with fewer years of teaching experience, those with higher academic qualifications, and those from Double High-level vocational colleges had higher mean digital literacy scores. No statistically significant differences in overall digital literacy were observed across professional title groups.
Table 5 further presents the intergroup difference analysis results of various demographic variables across the five primary dimensions of digital literacy among teachers at vocational colleges (AW, KN, AP, DSR, and DE). Bonferroni correction was applied to the main effect tests—that is, 25 independent hypothesis tests in total. The corrected significance level was set at α = 0.05/25 ≈ 0.002. The results showed that only a few intergroup differences remained significant, and effect sizes were small. Table 5 lists the statistics, significance levels, post hoc comparison results, and effect sizes for each group in the difference test. Overall, the impact patterns of different demographic variables varied across the five dimensions. Academic qualification and years of teaching experience showed relatively consistent effects, gender differences were primarily observed in the AP dimension, and variations related to professional titles and institution types were relatively limited.
(1) Gender differences in awareness and application. Gender differences in digital literacy were generally small in magnitude. Overall, female teachers scored slightly higher than male teachers in overall digital literacy (Cohen’s d = −0.230). In terms of specific dimensions, the differences were primarily concentrated in AW (d = −0.209), AP (d = −0.349), and DSR (d = −0.268), with female teachers consistently scoring significantly higher than male teachers in all three areas. Among these areas, the effect size for the AP dimension was relatively high, indicating a modest gender-related difference in practical application competence. In contrast, no significant differences were found in the KN dimension, while the DE dimension, despite reaching statistical significance, exhibited a smaller effect size. Overall, the findings revealed a structural pattern characterized by differences at the awareness and application levels, but limited differences at the knowledge level.
(2) Teachers with fewer years of teaching experience exhibit higher levels of digital literacy. Years of teaching showed a small but statistically detectable association with digital literacy (η2 = 0.022). Post hoc tests revealed that teachers with fewer than 6 years of teaching experience scored the highest (M = 61.13), while those with more than 30 years scored the lowest (M = 53.06). With the exception of the 11–20-year and 21–30-year groups, where the difference was not significant, differences between the remaining groups were generally significant. Across all dimensions, the relationship between years of teaching experience and digital literacy scores followed the pattern of fewer years of teaching experience correlating with higher digital literacy levels. Specifically, in the three dimensions of KN, AP, and DSR, teachers with < 6 years of teaching experience scored significantly higher than those in other groups. These results may reflect differences in exposure to digital technology and frequency of use among groups with varying lengths of teaching experience. However, the overall effect size indicates that teaching experience explains only a small proportion of variance in digital literacy.
(3) Differences associated with academic qualification and digital literacy levels. Academic qualification showed a statistically significant but small effect on digital literacy (η2 = 0.012), with teachers holding a master’s or doctoral degree scoring higher than those with a bachelor’s degree (mean difference = 3.80, p < 0.001). Across the five dimensions, statistically significant but small effects were observed in KN, AP, DSR, and DE, all indicating slightly higher scores among teachers with higher academic qualifications. In the AW dimension, post hoc comparisons revealed no significant differences between groups, indicating that differences among groups with different academic qualifications in this dimension were relatively limited. Overall, academic qualification exerted a stable but weak influence on teachers’ digital literacy.
(4) Differences by professional title are partially significant but have limited overall impact. The differences in total digital literacy scores among teachers with different professional titles did not reach statistical significance (F = 2.477, p > 0.05). Although statistically significant differences were observed in AW (F = 12.676, p < 0.001) and KN (F = 7.515, p < 0.001), the effect sizes were extremely small (η2 < 0.01), indicating negligible practical differences across groups. Teachers with senior professional titles scored significantly higher on the AW dimension than those with intermediate or other professional titles, but they scored lower on the KN dimension than did other professional title groups. However, the effect sizes for each dimension were low, indicating that although differences existed at the subdimension level, they were, in effect, small, and no stable pattern of influence emerged.
(5) Limited impact of institution type. For institution type, independent-sample t-tests revealed no statistically significant differences across all five dimensions after Bonferroni correction (corrected α = 0.002), with all p-values > 0.01 (nominal t-values ranging from 0.842 to 2.390). The effect sizes for all dimensions were trivial, with Cohen’s d values ranging from 0.026 to 0.077. These results suggest that institution type exerts a negligible influence on teachers’ digital literacy, with no substantial structural disparities between Double High-level and non-Double High-level institutions.
5 Discussion
Teachers at higher vocational colleges operate within a professional context characterized by the integration of teaching, practical training, and industry alignment. In this context, their digital literacy development was closely embedded in teaching practices and occupational requirements and was influenced by multiple contextual factors.
5.1 Teachers’ Digital Literacy Exhibits a Relative Imbalance
The findings indicated that the overall digital literacy of the surveyed teachers was at a moderately high level, while variations existed across dimensions. Digital awareness and professional responsibility were relatively strong, whereas digital skills and innovative capabilities remained comparatively weaker. This pattern is broadly consistent with previous studies reporting that university teachers’ digital competence tends to be at a low-to-moderate level, particularly in terms of technical knowledge and operational skills (
Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos et al., 2022;
Xin et al., 2024).
Further analysis of the relationships among dimensions showed variation in correlation strength. AW, AP, DSR, and DE exhibited moderate to high positive correlations, whereas KN showed relatively weaker correlations with the other dimensions. This suggests that in digital teaching practice, some teachers may place greater emphasis on tool-based application, while the connections between technical application and conceptual understanding appear less pronounced. This is consistent with the conclusion of Noguera et al. (
2024) that some teachers tend to focus on tool-based application, while the understanding of technical concepts and principles remains weak. It is also worth noting that the weak correlations may be partly influenced by the measurement methods, as the KN items focused on factual knowledge, while the other dimensions relied on attitudes and behaviors.
Focusing on the context of higher vocational education, institutions emphasize a technology- and skill-oriented approach aligned with job competencies (
Lahn & Berntsen, 2023). In their teaching practices, teachers prioritized the direct application of tools and operational efficiency while neglecting the mastery of technical principles and systematic knowledge construction. Consequently, enhancing the digital literacy of teachers at higher vocational colleges requires not only targeted reinforcement in specific dimensions but also synergistic integration of knowledge comprehension, skill application, and teaching practice to promote holistic advancement in their digital literacy.
5.2 Digital Literacy Differences by Years of Teaching Experience and Academic Qualification
The results indicated that years of teaching experience and academic qualifications were relatively central factors influencing the digital literacy of higher vocational college teachers. Previous research has similarly demonstrated significant correlations between teachers’ TPACK levels, years of teaching experience, and educational level (
Alqurashi et al., 2017); teachers’ digital literacy is significantly associated with years of teaching experience, academic qualification, and professional title (
Xin et al., 2024). This study found that teachers with fewer years of teaching experience outperformed those with more years of experience in adaptability to new technologies and learning capacity, corroborating existing research on the decline of digital literacy with increasing years of teaching experience (
Cattaneo et al., 2022;
Hinojo-Lucena et al., 2019;
Lucas et al., 2021).
Within the higher vocational education system, teachers are responsible not only for knowledge transmission but also for aligning instruction with industry standards, technical workflows, and occupational requirements. In this context, teaching expertise is mainly reflected in understanding industrial contexts, organizing practical instruction, and engaging with technical application scenarios. From a digital literacy perspective, differences may exist between practice-oriented teaching experience and the development of digital technical competencies. Teachers with longer teaching experience may exhibit higher reliance on established experience (
Guillén-Gámez et al., 2022). At the same time, the rapid development and iteration of digital technologies require ongoing learning and adaptation from teachers, which may be reflected in differences in the updating of digital skills across individuals with different teaching experience levels. In comparison, teachers with higher academic qualifications generally showed relatively stronger performance in systematic understanding of knowledge and learning-related capacities, which may support their engagement with digital technologies in teaching and data-related activities.
5.3 Challenges in Data-Driven and Research Innovation Capabilities
In the higher vocational education system, digital transformation not only requires teachers to possess fundamental digital literacy skills but also emphasizes their ability to make data-driven decisions and innovate teaching practices within real-world teaching and industry alignment contexts. Although teachers had developed certain competencies in basic digital application, deficiencies remained in data-driven teaching and research practices (
Cattaneo et al., 2022). Surveys have indicated that most teachers have yet to cultivate the awareness and habit of gaining insights into learning situations and identifying issues by using diverse data. Furthermore, most teachers are not familiar with the use of data analysis tools and models. This indicates that even when data are obtained, teachers struggle to transform the data into guiding analytical conclusions, thereby limiting the deep application of data in driving instructional decisions, optimizing curriculum design, and stimulating research innovation. Higher vocational college teachers still face shortcomings in higher-level practices such as technology-enabled academic research and teaching innovation. This is consistent with the findings of Voogt et al. (
2013), who demonstrated that vocational teachers tend to use digital technologies at a superficial level and lack the capacity for innovative teaching and research integration. Survey findings revealed that teachers’ capabilities in producing research outcomes and translating them into teaching innovations remained relatively weak, and, overall, the application of digital technology remained at a superficial level. This competence deficiency is not only reflected at the individual teacher level but is also related to the current lack of technical platforms to support data-driven teaching innovation, an open and sharing-oriented institutional culture, and stable industry–college collaboration mechanisms (
Cui et al., 2026;
Li, 2024;
Wei et al., 2025). Therefore, in response to the practical needs of developing high-quality higher vocational education, the enhancement of teachers’ digital literacy should shift from a focus on basic application skills to a restructuring of competency frameworks that equally emphasizes data-driven capabilities and teaching innovation capabilities.
6 Improvement Suggestions
6.1 Strengthening Digital Literacy Evaluation and Long-Term Enhancement Support Mechanisms
The empirical results indicated that the overall digital literacy of teachers in higher vocational colleges was at a moderately high level and that there was a relative imbalance in teachers’ digital literacy structure. In particular, significant group differences were concentrated predominantly in the AP dimension. This suggests that institutional policies should prioritize balanced development across dimensions rather than emphasize application alone. Higher vocational colleges may further integrate teachers’ digital literacy development into institutional development planning and teacher professional development systems. In parallel, resource guarantees and dynamic tracking mechanisms should be strengthened to create systematic, sustainable institutional support.
Specifically, the following steps are required. First, a sound evaluation and assessment mechanism for teachers’ digital literacy should be established. Developing teachers’ digital literacy may be treated as an important component of institutional teacher development initiatives, and a digital literacy module may be considered within the teacher professional development evaluation system. This module should comprehensively assess five dimensions: awareness, knowledge and skills, application, responsibility, and development. The assessment results may serve as a reference for the evaluation of teacher professional development and reflective feedback, thereby supporting continuous professional reflection and development (
Zhang, 2025). Second, based on the
Digital Literacy of Teachers framework, the indicators for evaluating teachers’ digital literacy may be further refined by considering regional characteristics and institutional contexts. At the same time, targeted digital resource support and dynamic feedback mechanisms for resource utilization (
SETDA, 2025) may be strengthened to better support teachers’ continuous digital literacy development. Third, a dynamic monitoring and tiered feedback system for digital literacy should be created (
Somabut et al., 2026). This approach, by periodically collecting literacy data, compiling development portfolios, and conducting group-based analyses, would help shift teachers from passive training participation to active professional development.
6.2 Reconstructing the Training for Balanced Improvement
The findings showed that higher vocational college teachers’ digital literacy exhibited a relative imbalance, and the KN dimension and innovative capabilities remained comparatively weaker. The gap in digital skills calls for coordinated development of digital literacy. Consequently, it is recommended that higher vocational colleges reform their existing training systems by abandoning a one-size-fits-all approach. Starting from the deficiencies in teachers’ digital literacy, targeted support should be provided that shifts the focus from skill development to practical empowerment (
Abedi, 2024), thereby building a sustainable literacy-development pathway. Specifically, this requires the following steps. First, training content should be optimized. Core knowledge, such as technical principles, resource screening strategies, and the operation of common digital tools, should be systematically integrated into compulsory modules. In addition, specialized training on data-driven teaching literacy, such as instructional data analysis, should be added to achieve deep integration of technical understanding and teaching practice. Second, a differentiated, tiered precision training system should be implemented. Individual differences among teachers, including educational background, initial literacy level, teaching experience, and disciplinary characteristics (
Jamil et al., 2025), should be fully considered. Needs analyses should inform differentiated designs. Third, the practical relevance and application depth of training should be enhanced. Following the principle of integrating theory and practice (
Zhang et al., 2024), training should focus on authentic teaching problems, requiring teachers to complete digital teaching tasks in real or simulated teaching contexts. Through task-driven formats such as project-based learning, lesson study workshops, and work-based activities, the acquired knowledge and skills can be embedded directly into daily teaching scenarios, thereby effectively enhancing the routine integration of technology into education and teaching.
6.3 Building an Innovation Ecosystem
The results indicated that teachers face dual challenges in data-driven capabilities and scientific research innovation capabilities. These weaknesses were reflected particularly in teachers’ limited ability to apply digital tools for instructional analysis, evaluation, and innovation-oriented practice. To support teachers in moving from routine technology use toward more reflective and innovation-oriented digital practice, higher vocational colleges may further strengthen institutional and collaborative support for digital innovation practice. This can be achieved by constructing digital innovation practice platforms, cultivating an open and innovative organizational culture, and deepening open collaboration between industry and institutions. Specifically, the following steps should be taken. First, the technical environment and conditions for innovation should be improved. Institutions should integrate campus teaching data systems, academic resource databases, and lightweight analytical tools to ensure that digital tools are consistently available and usable (
Dang et al., 2025). A digital innovation practice platform for teachers should be established to provide the high-quality resources teachers need for data-driven teaching research and innovative practice (
Wang, 2022). Second, an open, sharing-oriented digital innovation culture that encourages trial and error should be fostered. The concept of tolerating failure and pursuing continuous iteration should be promoted. Through case studies and story sharing, teachers’ motivation to innovate should be stimulated, forming a culture that dares to experiment and is willing to share. Third, an open and collaborative partnership ecosystem should be built. Cross-disciplinary and cross-institutional teams should be organized to conduct collaborative research on key issues in digital teaching. Regular outcome-sharing seminars should be held to promote collective growth. Cooperation with industry enterprises and research institutions should be deepened (
Sillaots et al., 2024), providing outstanding teachers with corporate practice opportunities and cutting-edge training. Industry needs should be transformed into teaching innovation projects, thereby creating a virtuous cycle.
7 Conclusions and Implications
The development of digital literacy among teachers at higher vocational colleges is crucial for cultivating skilled professionals and enhancing the quality of vocational education. To this end, this study conducted an empirical investigation of 6,957 teachers at higher vocational colleges based on a dedicated digital literacy indicator framework, characterizing their digital literacy profiles from multiple dimensions and systematically analyzing their structural relationships and group differences. The findings reveal that the overall digital literacy among the surveyed teachers was at a moderately high level, yet it exhibited relative imbalances—specifically, an uneven structure characterized by prominent awareness, underdeveloped skills, and limited innovation. In terms of dimensional relationships, significant correlations were observed among the various dimensions of digital literacy. Specifically, moderate to strong positive correlations exist among digital awareness, digital application, digital social responsibility, and professional development, while the correlations between digital knowledge and skills and the other dimensions are relatively weak.
Regarding group differences, variables such as years of teaching experience, academic qualification, and gender showed statistically detectable associations with teachers’ digital literacy levels; however, the effect sizes were generally small, indicating that demographic variables primarily reflect limited group differences rather than serving as decisive factors with strong explanatory power. Overall, two key challenges emerged: digital literacy among the surveyed teachers exhibited a relative imbalance and had insufficient data-driven capabilities and weak innovative capacity.
This study conducts a large-scale empirical investigation of 6,957 teachers from 30 higher vocational colleges in one Chinese province, identifies a structural pattern of developmental imbalance, and highlights key areas of weakness. It further deepens understanding of both the current status and group differences in teachers’ digital literacy in vocational education contexts and offers evidence-based implications for targeted improvement. This study also has certain limitations. First, the research is based on cross-sectional survey data and primarily describes the current characteristics of digital literacy among teachers in higher vocational colleges and statistical relationships between variables; therefore, the conclusions fall within the scope of descriptive and correlational interpretations. Future research could integrate multisource data and employ longitudinal tracking designs to explore the differentiated characteristics and developmental trajectories of teachers’ digital literacy, thereby enhancing causal inference and interpretive validity. Second, as the survey was conducted within one province and participation was voluntary, the sample may contain selection bias, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Teachers with stronger digital competencies or greater interest in digital technologies may have been more willing to participate, potentially resulting in the overrepresentation of digitally proficient teachers and an upward bias in the overall digital literacy estimate. Future research could increase the sample size and cover broader geographical regions and diverse institutional types to improve representativeness. Third, all core variables were obtained from self-reported survey data collected at the same point in time, which may have introduced common method bias. Furthermore, comparisons of mean scores, such as the lower KN score, are descriptive rather than strictly metric, as differences in item characteristics may partially cause the observed imbalance. Future research could optimize assessment tools and employ multiple measurement methods, such as performance-based tests alongside self-report scales, to disentangle content-based relationships from method-induced variance.
PDF
(1632KB)
