Annex 10 - Partner Feedback on Pilot 2

• Author: Castaño, Jonatan; Centeno, Clara; Jakobsone, Mara; Kluzer, Stefano; Troia, Sandra; Vuorikari, Riina; Cabrera, Marcelino; O'Keeffe, William; Zandbergs, Uldis; Clifford, Ian; Punie, Yves
• Pages: 135-136

DigCompSAT: A Self-reflection Tool for DigComp

135

Annex 10 - Partner Feedback on Pilot 2

Preparation

Before the start of the piloting process clear instructions about the tool, piloting process, target groups and

deadlines were sent to the coordinators, all important issues were explained and clarified during an online

meeting before the start of the process.

Selection

In Latvia, BDA felt that the time for carrying out piloting (June -July) was not seen as ideal as people were not

keen to get involved and spend time on the SAT in the summer. As a result, some refused mentioning ‘lack of

time’, ‘being away from home’ and some who filled in the initial questionnaire did not then do the SAT.

A significant level of effort was required by BDA to find people who matched the following specific demographic

criteria:

young people (aged 16-24) with higher education and basic digital skills;

age group 55-65 people with low education and advanced digital skills.

In Spain, Ibermática found that some types of users were very difficult to find or directly impossible:

Older people with low education and high digital skills

For a number of users, receiving the second reminder mail from Ibermática was a surprise, as they thought

that the SAT was already done with the sampling survey. Difficulties in reaching the expected number of users

forced Ibermática to personally phone people who had left the questionnaire unfinished to encourage them to

complete it.

At the end of July, Ibermática found a new group of users: the staff who do telemarketing and call handling

for various customers within Ibermática itself. These belonged to groups 16 -24 and 25-54 and were not IT

technicians. Thanks to the agreement with their supervisors, we were able to reach the expected number of

users. Ibermática felt that receiving this task from their supervisor might have affected their view of the SAT,

even though they were explicitly informed that the SAT was anonymous.

Observations about Sampling and Selection

In Latvia, in the initial survey people tended to indicate a higher level of education than they had. For those

participants who were close to finishing their degree of education they indicated it as already finished. Also

because of delay between the initial survey and the self-assessment test (May /June / July) some of the

participants had actually finished their degrees during that time period and would fall into a different education

group.

Some of the participants with higher digital skills were very critical about their skill level because they

understood the skill better and realised how much knowledge they are still missing. So they would score

themselves lower.

Some of the people who filled in the initial questionnaire in the centres afterwards discussed the meaning of

the question “Troubleshooting your printer” and “Managing websites with content management systems”.

Obviously, each respondent depending on their skills had own understanding of the complexity of the question.

People who considered their digital skills to be better were more responsive to participating. People who thought

their digital skills were lower were anxious to participate, even though they later achieved good results in the

self-assessment test.

Some of the participants who participated were contacted via their managers. Although they were instructed

that this is purely self-assessment and nobody will judge them, they still felt a bit nervous about the test and

some confessed that when in doubt they chose the more desirable answer just to make sure there was to be

no implication of “failing”.

Observations (when present) of participants by coordinators In Latvia

Generally, people who agreed to participate in the SAT were positive about it and we did not receive any

negative remarks about the process or tool itself.

Male respondents were less responsive and needed more effort than female respondents.