Reflective Culture and Digital Competence inPre-Service Teacher Development: TheMediating Role of Instructional Smart SelfEfficacy

2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.5815/ijmecs.2026.05.06
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Teacher education requires models that connect reflective practice and digital competence with thepsychological processes through which professional growth occurs. This longitudinal pre-test/post-test quasiexperiment examined whether a composite reflective-digital practice process predicted professional development andwhether instructional smart self-efficacy mediated this association. The sample comprised 120 third-year pre-serviceteachers enrolled in a Computer Science Pedagogy program (N = 120) who completed a 15-week interventionorganized across four instructional conditions. Data were collected with an expert-reviewed 19-item questionnaire usinga five-point Likert scale. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used to assess themeasurement and structural models, and indirect effects were evaluated with 5,000 bias-corrected bootstrap resamples.Internal consistency was satisfactory across the four constructs (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86-0.91). Reflective-digitalpractice was positively associated with professional outcomes (beta = 0.41, p < 0.001), whereas its path to instructionalsmart self-efficacy (beta = 0.12, p = 0.184) and the direct path from self-efficacy to professional outcomes (beta = 0.10,p = 0.211) were not significant. The bootstrapped indirect estimate was significant (B = 0.09, 95% CI [0.02, 0.17], p =0.018), and the model explained 54% of the variance in professional outcomes (R² = 0.54). These findings providepreliminary empirical support for a mediated reflective-digital pathway, while the single-program sample and relianceon self-reports limit causal and population-level inference.