5. Conclusions
The first study objective was to validate an ICT competences model for teachers. Based on the obtained results, a basic and essential model of ICT competences was validated. Therefore, this model is an advance regarding the empirical validation of competence frameworks that Tondeur et al. (in press) advocate and it is also a response to the lack of definition of teachers’ ICT competences that Hall et al. (2014) put forward. Besides, teacher’s ICT competences form a set of knowledge and skills that, in turn, form two subsets: technological competences and pedagogical competences. These two subsets are linked asymmetrically and in such a way that technological competences influence pedagogical competences. This coincides with what Aesaert and van Braak (2015) considered about ICT competences being a multilayered unit, and that technological knowledge and skills are included in the model. Moreover, these two subsets are connected asymmetrically, so that the technological competences influence on pedagogical competences. Similar conclusions are obtained by Dong et al. (2015) for whom the technological component influences on pedagogical component. Therefore, technological competences constitute the basis of the pedagogical competences, and the teacher has to master the first to implement the second, as Kennisnet (2012) proposed. The second objective was to know if the basic model would serve all teachers at all levels of education. The results indicated that the model offers stability and is representative of teachers, irrespectively of the level of education they teach, and a basic ICT competences structure is maintained. Consequently, these results corroborate that existing competence frameworks can be taken as a reference for teachers’ professional development, irrespectively of the level of education they teach, provided the two competence subsets are considered. It’s a respond to the proposal of UNESCO (2011). The third objective was to know whether the contextual and personal factors have an impact on the model. As we have seen, these factors imply a complex relation between ICT competences and teachers, which reinforces the consideration that competences imply complexity, which was what Aesaert and van Braak suggested (2015).