The Digital Capabilities Model of University Teachers in the Educational Activities Context Nadiia Balyk [0000-0002-3121-7005], Yaroslav Vasylenko [0000-0002-2520-4515], Galina Shmyger [0000-0003-1578-0700], Vasyl Oleksiuk [0000-0003-2206-8447], and Olha Barna [0000-0002-2954-9692] Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University 2 M. Kryvonosa St., Ternopil, Ukraine {nadbal, yava, shmyger, oleksyuk, barna_ov}@fizmat.tnpu.edu.ua Abstract. The article analyses the views of researchers on digital literacy. It de- scribes the meaning of the concept of digital capability. The authors summarize the common European standards and frameworks for teaching and evaluating digital capability. A model of the digital faculty of a university teacher based on the Jisc framework is described. It is adapted by the authors to the conditions of study at Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University (Ukraine). The article describes and analyses the author's` research on measuring digital capabilities of the teachers. The criteria and indicators for measuring the digital faculty of a university teacher are revealed. Methods of research using methods of mathematical statistics are described. The authors identified and ex- plained the correlations between individual distractors for each element of the framework. Some survey results were paradoxical, so a new study is needed. Based on this research, the authors have developed a program to improve the skills of teachers and their lifelong learning. Keywords: model, digital capability, research, Pedagogical University, teach- er's profile. 1 Introduction Today, people need digital capabilities, digital well-being to live, learn and work effec- tively with modern ICT technologies. Accordingly, scientists create many models to adapt individual digital capabilities to real life and meet human needs. These models define new requirements, tasks, and opportunities. All of them are realized through the digitalization of modern society. Nowadays, the question is, "What does it mean to be digital capable?" The answer depends on the individual and the organization in which he or she works or studies. Different organizations demonstrate different approaches to building both individual and organizational digital capabilities. The issue of digital ability at a deployment ICT technologies period is one of the most relevant and little studied issues. Research into both the personal digital ability of teachers and educational institutions as a whole is Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). now relevant. In general, the digital capability of the education industry is an integral part of the nationwide digital capability system, which is also characterized by many interconnected aspects. The purpose of this article is to study the digital capacity model of teachers and its implementation at the Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University (TNPU). 2 The theoretical basis of research The concept of digital literacy was preceded by the concept of digital capability. It has been widely studied in the 1990s [4]. It includes information, computer, network and media literacies. Modern researchers often define digital literacy as the ability to use modern digital technologies effectively and safely in work, study, professional and per- sonal development. For over 20 years, the concept of “digital literacy” is constantly transforming. P. Gilster defined digital literacy as the ability to understand and use information in a variety of formats from many sources. He highlighted four key competences of digital literacy: knowledge collections, content assessment, Internet search and navigation [12]. C. Pool studied the development of critical thinking in the Internet age [23]. In today's context, digital literacy is often viewed by researchers as a minimal skill set. These skills will allow the user to work effectively with software or to perform information retrieval tasks. This definition is functional. It identifies the basic skills needed to perform basic operations [7]. Specialists in the US Educational Testing Service have defined digital literacy as the ability to effectively use digital technologies, communications and networks to operate in the information society and solve important information problems. Scientists have included components in digital literacy such as the ability to use digital technology for research, evaluation and transmission of information. In addition, they noted that a dig- itally competent person should have an understanding of ethical and legal issues related to access and use of information [17]. This means that a person can communicate and interact with others, achieve economic success, and actively participate in social com- munities and collaborate on the Internet. That is, this approach states that digital literacy has become a skill that people need to process information and personal development [20]. A. Burn and J. Durran explored the concepts of digital literacy through the develop- ment of modern content forming technologies, digital economy competencies and dig- ital skills in frameworks of teaching disciplines. In their view, the most significant fea- ture of digital literacy is the combination of "information" with "media literacy." Sci- entists have found that users often have difficulty in distinguishing between these con- cepts [8]. Some theoretical schools have commented on the term "literacy". Their scientists believed that literacy was what usually happens at the beginning of the educational process. The problem for these researchers was to replace the term "literacy" with a broader one. This new concept should describe common digital practices, not just com- plex skills. This is how the term "digital literacy" was replaced by the term "digital capability". A. Bartlett-Bragg says that digital capability is not just about ICT competencies. It exists at the intersection of people and technology, work and learning [4]. Therefore, nowadays, scientists are studying both personal and collective digital abilities. Digital capabilities have been identified in the works of E. Bennett, S. Folley and H. Beetham [6], [5]. In particular, researchers compared professional teaching identity with their digital ability. Professional identity has also often been the subject of re- search. E. Bennett, S. Folley explored digitally capable teachers. These specialists showed confidence, readiness for research, resistance to failures. Scientists concluded that these characteristics defined teachers as successful practitioners, and were not de- termined solely by their technical skills. T. Owens described combining both identities and analysed learning experiences in the context of digital capabilities [22]. Specialists and teachers who were able to work in digital mode were studied in his work. Digital capability is the term used to describe the digital practices that people and organizations need. Such practices in the modern world are necessary for the successful operation of the individual and the good functioning of the business. By 2015, scientists had learned that creating a person's identity in the digital space, engaging it in the digital space, and performing digital activities provide many opportunities [22]. At the same time, these opportunities contribute too many threats. Researchers had concluded on the importance of building functional digital skills in the context of personal well-being, awareness of the integrity of the individual in the digital space [21]. Therefore, the concepts of "digital literacy" and "digital capability" are not com- pletely synonymous. Digital literacy is a minimum set of skills for assessing the infor- mation it uses to gain knowledge and solve problems. Digital capability is a systematic activity aimed at prospering people and organizations in the modern world and ensuring their information security. In this regard, the strategic solution was the creation of a digital capacity framework. These digital frames are most useful for activities such as: ─ combining people 's digital abilities; ─ embedding digital ability into specific subject areas; ─ mapping of digital experience of personnel with different roles; ─ structuring professional development; ─ assessment of digital ability level. Depth of digital ability may vary. One of the most advanced is the EU's digital compe- tency assessment system. It includes a number of institutions, indicators and programs. There are currently pan-European standards for teaching and evaluating digital capa- bility such as: ─ International Computer Driving Licence (ECDL/ICDL). Its certificates are valid in almost all European countries. The organization accredits exam centres - companies, schools, non-governmental organizations that conduct exams based on franchising. The curriculum consists of 18 modules at three levels: basic, intermediate and ad- vanced [14]. ─ Digital Competence Framework for citizens (DigComp). It was created by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. The latest version of this framework provides for eight skill levels. Based on this, educational organizations can create a basic digital capability course [9]. ─ The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI). It allows comparing European countries by indicator of digital skills, however is not suitable for certification of skills, training or research [24]. ─ The European Certification of Informatics Professionals (EUCIP). The frame is aimed at computer scientists. It is used by vocational education institutions to de- velop and certify training programs [25]. ─ The European e-Competence Framework (eCF). The framework has the status of an official European standard for ICT professionals. It contains 40 competencies appli- cable in the workplace. Suitable for use by corporations, small and medium-sized enterprises, educational institutions [26]. ─ The Jisc Framework. It focuses on emerging digital realities and provides an overall map of digital capability development at both basic and advanced levels. The Jisc framework was developed with the involvement of stakeholders. It is now the global benchmark for digital capability. It provides various examples of digital practices, tools and resources [11]. To create a model for our university's digital faculty and further research, we chose the Jisc framework. In addition, we used the models previously developed by us [3], [2]. The Jisc framework describes digital capability as a tool for the prosperity of educa- tional institutions in the digital world. It offers a way of thinking about how teachers and students can successfully operate in a digitalized society. The Jisc framework distinguishes between organizational and individual capacity. The concept of individual digital ability interprets learning as an individual result of a person, his or her effort and realization of individual opportunities. But learning must at the same time be a product of a supportive context. This happens when a person is in a supportive environment, has the necessary resources, and cooperates with the right people [13]. And the university should be responsible for providing that context. [15]. What it means to be capable of digital technology depends on each person. This de- pends on individual requirements, subject matter specialization, and career choices, personal and other factors. The Individual Digital Capability Framework contains six predefined elements: ─ ICT Proficiency (functional skills). ─ Information, data and media literacies (critical use). ─ Digital creation, problem solving and innovation (creative production). ─ Digital communication, collaboration and partnership (participation). ─ Digital learning and development (development). ─ Digital identity and wellbeing (self-actualising). The Jisc framework has created a series of role profiles that look at six elements of digital capability in the context of different roles. The main ones are the teacher's and the researcher's profile. Each profile demonstrates how new practices emerge and how teachers can use their own digital skills in different aspects of their professional role. Let's take a closer look at the elements of the Jisc framework. There are different views about ICT Proficiency being included as a separate element of the Jisc framework. However, all scholars agree that ICT knowledge is the basis for developing all other capabilities [16]. In the Information, data and media literacies element, "information literacy" and "media literacy" are aligned. There are two different discourses here, one focused on information and management. It applies to library science and digital technologies. The second discourse concerns the understanding of digital media related to communica- tions and media research. The boundaries between data literacy and information liter- acy are difficult to define. Scientists and teachers have the notion that "data" is the basis of research and accountability, and "information" is the result of a secondary analysis. Therefore, information, media and data literacy are considered as separate but closely related elements of digital capability. According to them, operations such as critical use, analysis, evaluation are applied. For example, actions on the proper use of digital data and information may be generalized to the concepts of "critical use of information" or "critical thinking". The element of Digital creation, problem solving and innovation covers the many ways in which teachers generate original ideas and results. For example, teachers are often innovative practitioners. The element of Digital creation, problem solving and innovation was expanded by the authors of the framework. This was done to make it more inclusive of "innovation" and other forms of creativity. Original thinking is cen- tral both to researchers who need to generate new ideas and to teachers who are devel- oping in the professional digital space. Teachers can be innovators both in their organ- izational activities and in specialized subject areas. The focus is on the use of digital technologies to develop and disseminate ideas and practices. This element includes cre- ativity and innovation as separate but related opportunities. They can be described as "creative production". The element of Digital communication, collaboration and partnership, reflects the fact that many aspects of social and cultural life are now online. The authors of the framework believe that this aspect of digital capability needs to be defined more broadly. The practical aspects of citizenship belong to this element. But the develop- ment and expression of personal values through civic activity can be seen as an aspect of identity. Even though critical use and creative production can be done through digital tools, participation can only take place with respect to other people. This activity is usually mediated through computer networks. The element Digital communication, col- laboration and partnership summarizes these elements. The element of Digital learning and development includes planning, reflection and all aspects of self-development in the digital environment. The university's teachers are responsible for the education of future generations. The framework describes the digital opportunities for organizing the educational process. There are now specialized training and assessment systems. They involve the use of special learning support applications (e.g., quizzes, animations, virtual worlds) and more general learning support applica- tions (such as tools for writing, discussing, collaborating, commenting, feedback). The element of Digital identity and wellbeing is quite important. Therefore, the au- thors of the framework added it as a separate component. However, it is sometimes associated with "digital identity". If the digital capability of the Jisc framework ex- presses "what I can do", then digital identity and well-being answers the question of "who am I when I do it". In the process of actualizing oneself as a digital personality, one or more manifestations of digital identity, digital participation styles, values, and a critical stance on digital ability develop. As a result, if digital identity is at the apex of the pyramid of digital capability de- velopment, and ICT knowledge is at its core, then other elements are examples of ex- isting digital practices. 3 Experimental study Based on this framework, we have created a digital capabilities model of university teacher. It provides an opportunity to implement the Jisc framework in the local context of Ukrainian higher education teaching practice. Our next step was to bring this model closer to existing role definitions and standards. We have modified the Jisc model based on professional Ukrainian standards for teaching staff and for researchers. This was done because teachers in universities combine both roles [18], [19], [10], [1]. In 2018-2019, we conducted an experimental study. Its purpose was to study the digital capability of TNPU teachers. During the research we used a set of research meth- ods, such as analysis of scientific and educational-methodological literature, official documents of the European Union, models of development of digital capabilities of the leading universities in the world and the government of Ukraine. They became the the- oretical basis for solving the problem. We also used empirical methods such as surveys and surveys of university teachers. This gave us an opportunity to find out the attitude of teachers to the problem of developing their digital capabilities. We used the methods of mathematical statistics to process the data obtained, analyse and interpret the study results. The study was conducted during the following stages: 1. Study of the studies that explored the digital capabilities of university teachers. Anal- ysis of models of development of digital capabilities and choose the most appropriate framework. 2. Adaptation of the chosen model taking into account the specifics of the functioning of our university. 3. Choice of experimental research methods. We have created a self-assessment ques- tionnaire by teachers of their own digital capabilities. The strategy of this study was to use an online survey. 4. Statistical processing of experimental data and interpretation of the results. We have created a self-assessment questionnaire for teachers of their own digital capabilities. We have created a self-assessment questionnaire for teachers of their own digital capabilities. The questionnaire contained 58 questions. They have been grouped into five sections according to the elements of the Jisc framework (see Table 1). We considered the sample as unrepresentative. Table 1. The structure of the author's model of digital capabilities Element Group of Code and Description of Distractor Distractor DProf1 – use ICT devices, software and services Digital pro- DProf2 – using subject-specialist ICT devices ficiency DProf3 – stay up to date with digital technologies as they evolve Digital DProd1 – work with software to achieve teaching and assessment profi- tasks ciency Digital DProd2 – use digital tools to work productively and efficiently productivity DProd3 – use institutional ICT systems for teaching, assessment DProd4 – adapt ICT systems, applications to suit personal needs IL1 – find, evaluate, manage, share digital content for learning IL2 – support learners in their use of content, including academic, Information professional and open content literacy IL3 – interpret information for academic and professional purposes Infor- IL4 – know the rules of copyright and plagiarism and alternatives mation, DL1 – collate, manage, access and use digital data in the medias data and Data liter- DL2 – record learner-related data in digital systems as required media lit- acy DL3 – manage personal data securely eracies ML1 – critically read and interpret messages from digital media Media liter- ML2 – support learners in their use of digital media acy ML3 – choose and use media resources suitable to students’ needs ML4 – know the rules of digital copyright and alternatives DCr1 – edit, remix, repurpose digital media to meet learning needs Digital cre- DCr2 – produce digital materials to communicate learning content Digital ation DCr3 – design digital tests, quizzes and assessment tasks creation, DCr4 – design digital activities for different teaching contexts problem- Digital re- DR1 – collect, understand and use evaluation teaching/learning solving search and data and inno- problem DR2 – use the outcomes of digital scholarship as learning re- vation solving sources Digital in- DIn1 – investigate and implement new approaches to teaching novation DIn2 – identify problems and challenges in digital learning Digital DCom1 – use digital communications to support learning Digital com- commu- DCom2 – communicate ideas in accordance with different cultural munication nication, DCom3 – consider the communication needs of learners collabo- DCom4 – support learners to communicate effectively ration DCom5 – respect others in public communications and par- DCol1 – participate in digital teams and working groups ticipation Digital col- DCol2 – collaborate effectively in digital spaces laboration DCol3 – support learners to collaborate using shared digital tools DP1 – participate in digital networks with learners and teachers Digital par- DP2 – share learning and teaching materials, educational resources ticipation DP3 – facilitate learning groups and networks DP4 – behave safely and ethically in networking situations DL1 – use digital networks to undertake professional development Digital DL2 – identify and take up opportunities for professional develop- learning ment in digital learning, teaching and assessment DL3 – reflect on personal practices with technology DTP1 – design and plan courses of study to include digital issues DTP2 – use digital tools to plan, design and review courses Digital DTP3 – design and plan digital learning and assessment activities learning DTP4 – adapt teaching in response to feedback from learners col- and de- lected velop- Digital DTP5 – facilitate learning in digital settings ment teaching DTP6 – use digital technologies to support in-class learning practices DTP7 – use digital tools to record learning events/data DTP8 – work with other professionals DTP9 – use digital tools in support of assessment DTP10 – design assessment activities to demonstrate digital capa- bilities Digital DId1 – develop a positive digital identity as an educator identity DId2 – collate and curate professional materials Digital DW1 – look after personal health, safety, relationships and balance identity DW2 – act with respect for the health of others and natural envi- and well- Digital ronment being wellbeing DW3 – participate in digital safety and cyber-bullying initiatives DW4 – ensure equality of access to digital opportunity DW5 – balance digital with real-world interactions appropriately Through the online form we interviewed 96 teachers from all TNPU faculties. Since the questionnaire contained many questions, we did not put any time limits for filling it out. Teachers were asked to give a self-assessment of the level of development of their own digital capabilities. The general form of the following question was used: "Please rate your digital capability ..."? Assessments were conducted on a four-point Likert-like scale ranging from 0 points (no digital capability) to 3 points (high digital capability). For example, one of the questions on the questionnaire was: "Please evalu- ate your own level of use of training ICT devices, systems, tools and services." The use of this method allowed obtaining quantitative data of respondents' self-es- teem. In our study, a sequential rating scale was used to express respondents' level of digital ability development. However, the use of the Likert scale in the study had short- comings such as the avoidance of respondents' maximum or minimum scores, the presentation of not sufficiently candid estimates, the irregularity of the interval scale. Therefore, when formulating the questionnaire, we met the following requirements: ─ use of unipolar rating scales in all matters; ─ removal of neutral response; ─ avoid formulating questions in a negative form; ─ concise explanation of questions in the form of simple sentences. The questions are focused on measuring the latent variable. In our study, this variable is the measure of digital capabilities. The respondent's assessment of each of the state- ments of the questionnaire can be considered as a function of the general latent factor. Therefore, we considered that a greater positive assessment of a respondent's assertion corresponds to a higher level of development of his or her digital capabilities. We have created a spreadsheet to process the results. It contained all the data re- ceived from the respondents. Since the questionnaire contained a large number of ques- tions, here is a snippet of this table for the items "Digital proficiency" and "Information, data and media literacies" (see Table 2): Table 2. Self-assessment data for the element "Digital proficiency" Digital proficiency Respondent's Digital proficiency Digital productivity number DProf1 DProf2 DProf3 DProd1 DProd2 DProd3 DProd4 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 … … … … … … … … 96 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 The full survey table can be downloaded from the link https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DTMjy5W6w5P5dHUPC3Yc6auRmJ1l0QSE We summed up all the distractors of each element group by the teacher's scores. The obtained total score allowed to determine the total assessment of the respondents to the studied distractor. Figures 1-3 contain a graphical representation of the results obtained: Fig. 1. Summative teachers` assessments of the elements "Digital proficiency" and "Infor- mation, data and media literacies" Figure 1 shows that in the "Digital proficiency" element, teachers rated their own digital capabilities most highly, such as "Use ICT devices, software and services" (Dprof1) and "Use institutional ICT systems for teaching, assessment" (Dprod3). Therefore, it can be considered that teachers have good knowledge of office software and university training services. In addition, "Stay up to date with digital technologies as they evolve" (Drof3) and "adapt ICT systems, applications to suit personal needs" (Drod4) distrac- tors were rated quite low. Therefore, it can be concluded that teachers are not yet ready to select specialized software and adapt it to their own professional needs. In the element "Information, data and media literature," the possibilities concerning copyright and related rights (IL4, ML4) and critical assessment of information (ML1) were most highly appreciated. Based on the analysis of the element "Digital creation, problem-solving and innova- tion" (see Fig. 2), we concluded that teachers are not ready to use innovations, create new digital learning resources and solve related problems. At the same time, teachers find themselves competent enough to design digital tests, quizzes and assessment tasks (Dcr3 distractor). Among the items of the "Digital Communication and Cooperation element" the distractor "Participating in digital networks and social media relevant" (DP1), as expected, received the highest score. We were surprised by the low score of the "Consider the communication and access needs of different learners" (DCom3 distractor). In particular, in the face of modern challenges, these digital capabilities need improvement and refinement. Therefore, we can say that the explanation for this phenomenon requires a separate study. Fig. 2. Summative teachers` assessments of the elements "Digital creation, problem-solving and innovation" and "Digital communication, collaboration and participation" Most evaluations of Digital Learning and Development and Digital Identity and Well- being distractors may be considered acceptable (see Fig. 3). DL3 distractor is negatively distinguished from this distribution. This means that TNPU lecturers do not think too often about methods of personal learning, teaching and assessment using ICT technol- ogies. Fig. 3. Summative teachers` assessments of the elements "Digital learning and development" and "Digital identity and wellbeing" The processing and analysis of the results of the study involved the use of the Likert scale and the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. The result of this use was to detect the existence of correlation relationships between individual distractors for each frame- work element. At this stage of the study, we built tables to calculate the Spearman rank correlation coefficients. The following table presents the results of the calculation of the DProf1 distractor. Table 3. Calculation of the correlation coefficient for the DProf1 distractor Respon- Respon- Rank2 DProf1- Rank1 Rank1- (Rank1- dent's dent's DProf1 (DProf1- Sum (DProf1) Rank2 Rank2)2 Number Sum Sum) 1 10 3 7 12,5 59,5 -47 2209 2 12 2 10 51 29 22 484 3 6 2 4 51 88 -37 1369 4 3 1 2 86,5 93 -6,5 42,25 … 96 16 2 14 51 5 46 2116 Total 977 196 781 4656 4656 0 88313,5 Let's explain some of the column headers in the Table 3: 1. Respondent's Sum – the sum of the points of all distractors from the Digital profi- ciency element; 2. DProf1-Sum – the difference between the distractor score (DProf1 column) and the sum from item 1 (Respondent's Sum column); 3. Rank1 – the rank (taking into account the correction coefficient for the associated ranks) of the respondent score among the scores of all teachers; 4. Rank2 – the rank of difference (DProf1-Sum) obtained in paragraph 2. Similarly, we calculated the data in all tables according to all 58 distractors of the ques- tionnaire. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was calculated for each distractor by the formula: 6 ∑𝑛 𝑖=1 (𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘1 −𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘2 ) 2 𝑟𝑠 = 𝑛(𝑛2 −1) (1) where rs is Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, Rank1-Rank2 is the rank difference, n = 96 is the number of rank pairs (number of respondents). The values of all obtained correlation coefficients are shown in table 4: Table 4. The values of the correlation coefficients for all distractors Distractor rs Distractor rs Distractor rs DProf1 0,4 DCr1 0,72 DL1 0,48 DProf2 0,33 DCr2 0,73 DL2 0,54 DProf3 0,34 DCr3 0,61 DL3 0,44 DProd1 0,68 DCr4 0,72 DTP1 0,83 DProd2 0,74 DR1 0,24 DTP2 0,81 DProd3 0,69 DR2 0,22 DTP3 0,89 DProd4 0,69 DIn1 0,24 DTP4 0,82 IL1 0,45 DIn2 0,23 DTP5 0,82 IL2 0,46 DCom1 0,58 DTP6 0,81 IL3 0,43 DCom2 0,53 DTP7 0,89 IL4 0,49 DCom3 0,5 DTP8 0,89 DL1 0,41 DCom4 0,49 DTP9 0,84 DL2 0,44 DCom5 0,45 DTP10 0,87 DL3 0,35 DCol1 0,36 DId1 0,45 ML1 0,46 DCol2 0,3 DId2 0,43 ML2 0,5 DCol3 0,33 DW1 0,89 ML3 0,48 DP1 0,48 DW2 0,89 ML4 0,45 DP2 0,54 DW3 0,81 DP3 0,44 DW4 0,71 DP4 0,53 DW5 0,89 We interpreted the results based on the Cheddock Scale [27]. The limits of the cor- relation coefficients obtained allow us to estimate the close relationship between the distractors inside the element. Therefore, according to the Cheddock scale, we have determined the following coefficient limits: ─ 0,1-0,3 – weak connection; ─ 0,3-0,5 – moderate relationship; ─ 0,5-0,7 – average connection; ─ 0,7-0,9 – strong bond; ─ 0,9-0,99 – very strong relationship. A graphical representation of the obtained correlation coefficients for all 58 distractors is shown in figure 4. Основной Основной Основной Основной Основной Основной IL2 DCol2 IL4 DCr3 DCr1 DIn1 DId2 DR1 DProd2 DProd4 DW2 DW4 DP1 DP3 DTP10 DCom1 DCom3 DCom5 DL2 ML1 ML3 DL1 DL3 DTP2 DTP4 DTP6 DTP8 DProf3 DProf1 Fig. 4. Diagram of obtained Spearman's correlation coefficients In the diagram, distractors with low correlation coefficients are coloured dark. Colours corresponding to high rs distributors have a light colour. The diagram shows that there is a strong link between all distractors in elements such as "Digital teaching practices" and "Digital wellbeing". This means that the distractors of these elements are selected and identified as correctly as possible. A similar situation with the "Digital creation element". Unfortunately, the questionnaire contained 4 distractors with low correlation coeffi- cient – DR1, DR2, DIn1, and DIn2. They all belong to the element of "Digital creation, problem-solving and innovation". It can be assumed that the distractors of this element relate to scientific activity. Therefore, we can assume that teachers believe that their own functional skills as a scientist are not as advanced as teaching. Recalling that some of these distributors had a low overall sum, it could be concluded that such a questionnaire should be adjusted for further research. All other distractors of the questionnaire generally correlate quite well within their elements. This indicates that the questionnaire has sufficient quality and validity. 4 Conclusions The paper analyses the views of researchers on digital literacy. On this basis, the content of the concept of digital capability is revealed. Digital capability consists of skills, knowledge and understanding. They allow critical, creative and secure use of digital technologies. It is about cultural and social awareness and functional skills of the indi- vidual. It is also important to know when digital technologies are appropriate and useful for the task and when not. The term "digital capability" is associated with such frameworks as UCISA and Jisc. According to these models, digital literacy is made up of elements. These items help to define how the term is used to evaluate teachers' digital ability. The Jisc framework has become a methodological basis for the study digital capa- bilities of the university's teachers. It is mainly intended for the evaluation of individual professional development. In this study, the digital capability model was tested in the context of teachers` educational and research activities. An important role in the development of digital capability is the systematic use of ICT-technologies in the educational process. The digital capability is closely related to the professional activity of the teacher. Digital abilities are closely related to the pro- fessional activities of the teacher. It involves the use of modern digital technologies, efficient delivery of knowledge, involving students in practical activities, organization of monitoring and evaluation of academic achievements. Compliance with these re- quirements ensures the development of students' digital capabilities. Questionnaire was used to develop approaches to assessing the digital capabilities of teachers and collecting relevant data. The questionnaire was created on the basis of the Likert scale. The correlation within the elements was verified using the Spearman correlation coefficient and the Cheddock scale. Based on the analysis of the results, the specialists of the Department of Informatics of the TNPU developed teacher’s development programs for their lifelong learning. Based on these programs, trainings are designed to help university teachers develop their own digital capabilities. In modern conditions, they are very important, in partic- ular for distance learning. The educational offer of advanced training courses is quite broad. These are digital skills development courses and trainings that cover topics such as: 1. Distance learning organizations using digital technologies. This will enable the use of technological infrastructure and the digital environment to ensure inclusive expe- rience for all learners. 2. Designing digital capabilities in the curriculum. The purpose of this training is to achieve mastery in digital curriculum design. According to these programs, teachers will prepare students for successful learning and living in the digital world. The training is aimed at developing digital creativity and problem solving skills. 3. Digital educational leaders program. It provides the digital capability and success of the entire educational institution. 4. Students' employment development skills. The program provides the skills, knowledge and experience of graduates using digital technologies. 5. Supporting the digital identity of teachers. The training will help educators make informed and responsible choices when using digital technology in their professional activities. We hope that these trainings will help educators to achieve high digital ability and meet today's challenges. It provides guided paths through teacher support scenarios. We be- lieve that these, modern educators will work effectively in the fast-paced, complex dig- ital world that is shaping new learning realities. References 1. Bakhrushyn, V.: Teachers' Professional and Educational Standards: A Worldwide Experi- ence, http://education-ua.org/ua/articles/950-profesijni-ta-osvitni-standarti-pedagogiv-svi- tovij-dosvid (2017) 2. Balyk, N., Oleksiuk, V., Shmyger, G.: Development of e-Learning Quality Assessment Model in Pedagogical University. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1844, pp. 440-450 (2017) 3. Balyk, N., Vasylenko, Y., Shmyger, G., Oleksiuk, V., Skaskiv, A.: Design of approaches to the development of teacher’s digital competencies in the process of their lifelong learning. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2393, pp. 204–219 (2019) 4. Bartlett-Bragg, A.: Digital Capabilities: Where people and technology intersect. 9th Inter- national Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies,3-5 July, Barcelona, Spain, pp.14–21 (2017) 5. Beetham, H.: Building capability for new digital leadership, pedagogy and efficiency, http://digitalcapability.Jiscinvolve.org/wp/2015/06/11/revisiting-digital-capability-for- 2015/ (2015) 6. Bennett, E., Folley, S.: D4 Strategic Project:Developing Staff Digital Literacies. External Scoping Report. Project Report. University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK, http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/26266/ (2015) 7. Buckingham, D. Defining digital literacy – What do young people need to know about dig- ital media? Nordic Journal of Digital LiteracyJubileumsnummer, 10, pp. 21–35 (2015) 8. Burn, A., Durran, J.: Digital Anatomies: analysis as production in media education, pp.273– 293. In D. Buckingham, R. Willett (eds.), Digital Generations: Children, Young People and New Media Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (2006). 9. Digital Competence Framework for citizens DigComp, https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcomp (2017) 10. Digital Education Project, https://osvita.diia.gov.ua/about (2020) 11. Framework Jisc, https://digitalcapability.jisc.ac.uk/what-is-digital-capability/individual- digital-capabilities/our-digital-capabilities-framework/ (2015) 12. Gilster, P.: Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Publications (1997) 13. Glazunova, O., Shyshkina, M.: The Concept, Principles of Design and Implementation of the University Cloud-based Learning and Research Environment. CEUR Workshop Pro- ceedings, 2104, pp. 332-347 (2018) 14. International Computer Driving Licence (ECDL / ICDL), http://ecdl.org/ (2000) 15. Kuzminska, O., Mazorchuk, M., Morze, N., Kobylin, O.: Attitude to the digital learning environment in Ukrainian universities. In: ICT in Education, Research and Industrial Appli- cations: Integration, Harmonization and Knowledge Transfer, Volume II: Workshops, pp. 53–67 (2019). 16. Kravtsov, H., Kobets, V.: Model of the Curriculum Revision System in Computer Science. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2104, pp. 488-500 (2018) 17. Lankshear, C., Knobel, M.: Digital Literacy and Digital Literacies: Policy, Pedagogy and Research Considerations for Education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 4, pp. 8–20 (2015) 18. Law of Ukraine «On Education» of 16.01.2020, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/ /laws/show/2145-19 (2020) 19. Law of Ukraine «On Higher Education» of 01.07.2014, https://za- kon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1556-18 (2014) 20. Lee, S.-H.: Digital Literacy Education for the Development of Digital Literacy. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 5(3), https://doi.org/10.4018/ijdldc.2014070103 (2014). 21. Nosenko, Yu., Sukhikh, A: The Method for Forming the Health-Saving Component of Basic School Students’ Digital Competence. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2393, pp. 178-190 (2019) 22. Owens, T.: Hitting the nail on the head: the importance of specific staff development for effective blended learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(4), pp.389–400 (2012) 23. Pool, C.: A conversation with Paul Gilster. Educational Leadership, 55 (3), pp.6–11 (1997). 24. The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-mar- ket/en/desi (2019) 25. The European Certification of Informatics Professionals (EUCIP), http://www.ics- skills.ie/eucip/ (1997) 26. The European e-Competence Framework (eCF), https://www.ecompetences.eu/ (2019) 27. Turan, U.: A Correlation Coefficients Analysis On Innovative Sustainable Development Groups, http://eu-jr.eu/social/article/download/1130/1136 (2020)