What are the determinants of rural-urban divide in teachers’ digital teaching competence? Empirical evidence from a large sample

ABSTRACT The digital divide between rural and urban areas is becoming the key factors resulting educational imbalance, which might be exacerbated by differences in teachers’ digital teaching

competence. Therefore, it was crucial to explore the divide and determinants of digital teaching competence between rural and urban teachers. A large-scale survey was conducted with 11,784

K–12 teachers in China (43.40% from rural schools and 56.60% from urban schools). First, this study investigated potential factors for teachers’ digital teaching competence, including

information and communication technology (ICT) attitude, ICT skills, and data literacy. Second, the data indicated the digital divide existed, i.e., the ICT attitude, ICT skills, data

literacy, and digital teaching competence of rural teachers were significantly lower than those of urban teachers. Third, the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method demonstrated that data

literacy and ICT skills were the most important determinants of the divide in digital teaching competence between rural and urban teachers. Hence, our research provided important insights

for policymakers, school leaders and teachers to bridge the digital divide. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS EXPLORING FACTORS INFLUENCING PRE-SERVICE TEACHER’S DIGITAL TEACHING

COMPETENCE AND THE MEDIATING EFFECTS OF DATA LITERACY: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM CHINA Article Open access 15 August 2023 FACTORS AFFECTING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY ACCESS IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

Article Open access 07 April 2023 SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSES OF DIGITAL INEQUITY IN EDUCATION: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS Article Open access 18 August 2024 INTRODUCTION Ensuring inclusive and

equitable quality education for all, as Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), was called for urgent attention around the world (United Nations, 2022; The Word Bank, 2022). Information and

communication technologies (hereinafter, ICT), which had the potential to achieve universal access and transform education (Timotheou et al. 2022), were considered as a promising solution to

advance equity in education (Luo et al. 2022a). However, the rapidly growing ICT also posed challenges to education, that was, the risk of further digging the digital divide. With the

gradual popularization of ICT infrastructures, the digital divide took on different shapes (van Dijk, 2006). The first-order digital divide referred to the differences in access to the

internet and digital technologies (van Dijk, 2020). The second-order digital divide was based on digital competence and use (Corkin et al. 2022; Castaño Muñoz et al. 2022; Goudeau et al.

2021; Aissaoui, 2022). The third-order digital divide was the difference in the results of benefiting from the use of digital technology (Zhao et al. 2022; Lutz, 2019; Ragnedda and Ruiu,

2017). However, some studies showed that the rural-urban digital divide in education was still complicating and growing even with better ICT infrastructures (Dolan, 2016) . Given the global

context, the United Nations (2022) reported that entrenched inequalities in education only worsened, with a deep divide between rural and urban areas, one of which was the skills to use

digital technologies, such as computers. The digital competence divide, as the second-order digital divide, was a persistent barrier to education in the digital age (UNESCO, 2021). Bridging

the digital divide was also a huge challenge for teachers (Creighton, 2018), and enhancing the quality of teachers in rural schools was often cited as a key strategy (Luo et al. 2022b). If

teachers lacked the competence to integrate digital technologies in teaching, it would be meaningless to bridge the first-order digital divide with completed ICT infrastructures. Digital

teaching competence implied the acquisition of a set of skills, knowledge, and attitude that teachers must possess for the technical, pedagogical, and didactic incorporation of ICT in

educational contexts (Cabero-Almenara et al. 2021). Existing studies found that teachers’ digital teaching competence had a direct positive impact on empowering students (Aydin, 2022; Lin et

al. 2022), and there was still a lot of room for improvement in teachers’ digital teaching competence (Gouseti et al. 2023; ElSayary, 2023; Yang et al. 2022; Antonietti et al. 2022).

Therefore, how to improve teachers’ digital teaching competence should be highly valued. What’s more, most of the existing studies revealed the digital divide in digital competence from the

perspective of students (Li et al. 2023; Weninger, 2022; Zhao et al. 2022; Liao et al. 2016), few studies focused on the current situation of rural teachers (Wu et al. 2022), and even less

explored the differences and determinants between rural and urban teachers’ digital teaching competence. While ICT infrastructures were being built, the rural-urban differences and

determinants in teachers’ digital teaching competence were clearly needed to become future-ready. The research questions for the study include: (1) What are the potential factors that

influence teachers’ digital teaching competence? (2) Does the divide in digital teaching competence exist between rural and urban teachers? (3) If it does, what is the relative importance of

the determinants contributing to the competence divide? The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section “Literature review and hypotheses development” reviews the literature and

processes the hypotheses. This section also provides details on prior studies to find the research gap, hence it motivates the interest in the differences and determinants between urban and

rural teachers. Method section describes the instruments and datasets used in our research. Data is then analyzed in the Result. To be specific, we verify the instrument and measurement

model, test the hypotheses and explore the determinants of rural-urban divide in teachers’ digital teaching competence. In the Discussion, we discuss the results and answer three research

questions. Finally, we conclude the paper and list the implications and limitations in the “Conclusion, implication, and limitation” section. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT ICT

ATTITUDE ICT attitude, which determined whether teachers were willing to integrate digital technologies in teaching (Aslan and Zhu, 2017; Sang et al. 2011), was a prerequisite for teachers

to carry out educational programs with digital technologies (Gupta and Singh, 2018). In previous research, ICT attitude was expressed as general feelings of support for or opposition to the

use of ICT (Lin et al. 2022; Yuen and Ma, 2008). Some studies found that teachers’ attitude would influence their behaviors in using digital technologies in teaching (Latorre-Cosculluela et

al. 2023; Antonietti et al. 2022; Scherer et al. 2019; Simonsson, 2004; Huang and Liaw, 2005), as would their digital teaching competence (Hernández-Ramos et al. 2014; Drent and Meelissen,

2008). However, other researchers demonstrated that teachers’ ICT attitude did not have a significant relationship with digital teaching competence (Lin et al. 2022; Gudmundsdottir and

Hatlevik, 2018; Aslan and Zhu, 2017). Hämäläinen et al. (2021) also revealed that teachers still stayed low level in their competence with high level of ICT attitude. Due to the

contradictions between existing studies, we wanted to explore this relationship through a large-scale investigation. Geographic location of school was proven to be an essential variable for

teachers to use digital technology (Chen et al. 2023; Liu and Teddlie, 2009). Keramati et al. (2011) showed that urban teachers had a positive attitude towards ICT use and could

significantly influence their digital use. Compared with urban teachers, remote rural teachers tended to have more conservative teaching concepts (Wu et al. 2022). Even though rural teachers

had a positive attitude towards ICT (Mahdum et al. 2019), teachers might be reluctant to digital use in the classroom. Therefore, this study speculated whether there was a difference in ICT

attitude that led to divide in the digital teaching competence between rural teachers and urban teachers. Above all, we proposed the following hypotheses: > Hypothesis 1 (H1): Teachers’ 

ICT attitude positively affect their > digital teaching competence. > Hypothesis 2 (H2): Rural teachers show a lower level of ICT attitude > than urban teachers. ICT SKILLS ICT

skills were seen as necessary conditions for using technology to improve teaching practices (Hamailainen et al. 2021; Knezek and Christensen, 2016), which referred to the use of hardware

(e.g., computers, projectors, or visualizers) and software (e.g., social media, web platforms, or teaching tools in discipline). Prior studies showed that teachers’ ICT skills had a

significant impact on digital teaching competence (Lin et al. 2022) and were associated with the level of the teaching profession (Kaarakainen et al. 2018; Knezek and Christensen, 2016).

Hatlevk (2017) also confirmed that assessing teachers’ self-efficacy in basic ICT skills could predict changes in teachers’ digital competence. Thus, if schools wanted to introduce digital

technologies, they should ensure teachers maintained basic ICT skills (Ilomäki et al. 2016). The technical environment for teachers in urban schools was more adequate so that urban teachers

could teach more effectively than rural teachers (Mitchell and Nath, 2013; Wahyudi and Treagust, 2004). Studies showed, in Malaysia, that rural teachers had poor ICT skills compared to urban

teachers (Khairani, 2017). Due to limited hardware and resources in rural areas, rural teachers were under great pressure to use technology (Gabr et al. 2021), hindering teachers’ use of

ICT in the classroom (Califf and Brooks, 2020). The ineffective use of hardware and software was what further exacerbated the divide in education between rural and urban areas (Wu et al.

2022; Li et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2019). For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, online teaching was implemented on a large scale. Compared to urban teachers, Salemink et al. (2017) found

that rural teachers were poor in technology use and lacked ICT skills. What’s more, the rural-urban gap in ICT infrastructures was further narrowed in China. Based on previous research, it

was valuable to explore whether there was a gap in ICT skills among rural and urban teachers under the premise of balanced infrastructure construction. Above all, we proposed the following

hypotheses: > Hypothesis 3 (H3): Teachers’ ICT skills positively affect > teachers’ digital teaching competence. > Hypothesis 4 (H4): Rural teachers show a lower level of ICT skills

> than urban teachers. DATA LITERACY Data literacy for teaching referred to transform information into actionable instructional knowledge and practices by collecting, analyzing, and

interpreting all types of data (Gummer and Mandinach, 2015). Most scholars described teachers’ data literacy as including four dimensions: data collection, data analysis, data evaluation,

and data application (Cui et al. 2023; Papamitsiou et al. 2021). Theoretically, teachers could cultivate their data literacy (Kennedy-Clark and Reimann, 2022; Cui and Zhang, 2021) to capture

students’ data and provide valuable feedback for teaching and learning in a data-rich environment (Cui et al. 2023; Gebre, 2022). However, existing research revealed that data literacy

among teachers was generally lacking and still had large scope for improvement (Sun et al. 2016; Wu et al. 2021). In addition, Lin et al. (2022) investigated a small-size sample and found

data literacy can significantly predict teachers’ digital teaching competence. Therefore, it is necessary to reconfirm that conclusion based on the large-scale survey. Digital technology

with data might benefit rural areas (Tian et al. 2021), which would make data-driven teaching decisions increasingly personalized and intelligent. On the one hand, we took into account that

rural teachers, who were inadequate use of digital technologies, might prevent them from collecting, analyzing, evaluating and applying data (Lin et al. 2022), demonstrating a low level of

data literacy. On the other hand, there were few existing studies about data literacy in rural areas. For example, Conn et al. (2022) interviewed rural teachers who noted that data literacy

was not mentioned in teacher assessment to collect data on how teachers improved their teaching based on the results of the assessment. Thus, it was obvious that the cultivation of data

literacy was neglected for rural teachers. What’s more, even less study discovered the divide on data literacy in rural-urban comparison. Therefore, it was urgent to explore the rural-urban

digital divide in data literacy. Above all, we proposed the following hypotheses: > Hypothesis 5 (H5): Teachers’ data literacy positively affects > teachers’ digital teaching 

competence. > Hypothesis 6 (H6): Rural teachers show a lower level of data > literacy than urban teachers. DIGITAL TEACHING COMPETENCE Digital teaching competence, as the key to

directly relate to empowering students (Lin et al. 2022), implied the acquisition of a set of skills, knowledge, and attitude that teachers must possess for the technical, pedagogical, and

didactic incorporation of ICT in educational contexts (Cabero-Almenara et al. 2021). In Indonesia, Mahdum et al. (2019) investigated 616 rural high school teachers and found that they had a

positive attitude and strong motivation to integrate information technology into their classrooms but rarely used digital technologies in their classrooms. Therefore, rural teachers were

unable to effectively use digital technology and integrate it with teaching (Yang et al. 2018). Rural teachers had a low level of digital competence and were often considered as poor users

of digital technologies (Dauvarte, 2015; Rana et al. 2018). In contrast, teachers in urban areas were equipped to fully integrate digital technologies in education (Yu et al. 2020). For

example, Thannimalai et al. (2022) showed that significant difference in the use of digital technologies between rural and urban teachers. However, Zhao et al. (2022) confirmed that no

significant difference in the level of digital support provided to students from rural and urban teachers. There were contradictions in existing studies, and whether there was a difference

in the digital teaching competence of rural and urban teachers remained to be explored. Above all, we proposed the following hypothesis: > Hypothesis 7 (H7): Rural teachers show a lower 

level of digital > teaching competence than urban teachers. DIGITAL DIVIDE IN COMPETENCE Competence and use of digital technologies, as the second-order digital divide, were urgent needs

to coordinate global efforts (van Dijk, 2006). On the one hand, existing studies identified some factors that widened the digital divide in competence, including gender (Estanyol et al.

2023), internal motivation (Zhao et al. 2022), location (Zarifa et al., 2019), ICT skills (Ben Youssef et al. 2022), access to digital technologies (Le et al. 2023), and social class

disparities (Wei and Hindman, 2011) and so on. On the other hand, prior research on the relevant digital divide in education mainly focused on students (Corkin et al. 2022) and schools

(Castaño Muñoz et al. 2022), while ignoring the teacher as the research object. Colicol and Colicol-Rodriguez (2023), conducted an ethnographic study, underscored the dynamic role of

teachers in alleviating the digital divide between urban and rural areas and the need for teachers to have a voice in policymaking. Therefore, some studies explored the fact that there was

the digital divide in teacher’s competence, but a few delved into the factors that exacerbated the digital divide in teacher’s competence. For example, Quaicoe and Pata (2020) focused on

teachers’ digital competence and revealed that corresponding digital activities related to professional roles would impact the digital divide in teachers’ competence. What’s more, the gaps

in teachers’ ICT attitude, ICT skills, and data literacy reflected that rural schools and teachers still show lower perception, lower competence and lag behind in access to digital

technologies (Quaicoe and Pata, 2020; Soomro et al. 2020). However, there was little research to figure out the extent to which determinants affected the digital divide in teachers’

competence. METHODS INSTRUMENT MEASUREMENT The research instrument consisted of two parts. The first part was the demographic information of the participants, including gender, years of

teaching experience, geographic location of school, and school level. The second part was four subscales, adopted from Lin et al. (2022), including ICT attitude, ICT skills, data literacy,

and digital teaching competence. Data were collected through the online questionnaire platform Wenjuanxing (https://www.wjx.cn/). The response to each item was on a 5-point Likert scale,

ranging from 1 to 5 on a scale of strongly disagreeing to strongly agreeing. The Cronbach’s _α_ coefficient of each subscale was greater than 0.8, and the average variance explained (AVE) of

each construct was greater than 0.5, indicating that each item had acceptable reliability and validity. All the constructs and items were shown in Table 1. DATA COLLECTION Participants were

K–12 rural and urban teachers from kindergartens, primary schools, secondary schools, high schools, and vocational schools in Zhejiang province, China. The teachers participated in the

implementation training of the Information Technology Application Competence Improvement Project 2.0, which was a large-scale training covering rural and urban areas aimed at improving the

teachers’ digital teaching competence. The online questionnaires were completed voluntarily and anonymously. Finally, we collected 11,784 valid questionnaires. Table 2 listed the

participants’ detailed demographic information. In the previous study, geographic locations were divided into two levels, including rural and urban areas (Wu et al. 2023; Thomä, 2023),

depending on the remoteness and administrative division of schools. Rural teachers accounted for 43.40% and urban teachers for 56.60%. RESULTS MEASUREMENT MODEL TESTING Principal component

analysis was used to test the convergent validity and discriminant validity of each construct. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin statistic was 0.942, and the _p_-value of Bartlett’s test was less than

0.05, which was strong evidence that the data were suitable for factor analysis (Kaiser, 1974). Four constructs, which explained 81.781% of the total variance, were extracted. Table 3

displayed the rotation factor loads for each item. The factor loads of each construct and its items were above 0.5. In addition, the factor load of each construct and other items was less

than 0.5, illustrating accepted convergent validity and discriminant validity (Chin, 1998). Subsequently, AMOS 24 was used for a confirmatory factor analysis. Since CMIN/DF was easily

affected by sample size, the measurement model could be proven from other fit indices (Hu and Bentler, 1998). The results indicated that the fitness of measurement models was acceptable

compared to the criteria (Hu and Bentler, 1999), as shown in Table 4. Cronbach’s _α_ coefficients, combinatorial reliability (CR), and AVE were calculated to assess construct reliability,

convergent validity, and discriminant validity. In Table 5, the CR and Cronbach’s _α_ coefficients of each item were above 0.85, indicating good construct reliability (Nunnelly, 1975).

Meanwhile, the AVE of each construct was above 0.5, and the loadings of each construct and its item were greater than 0.7, indicating that the convergence validity was also accepted (Fornell

and Larcker, 1981). Furthermore, the square root AVEs of each construct were greater than its correlation coefficient with other constructs, and had good discriminating validity, as shown

in Table 6 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). HYPOTHESES TESTING We proceeded to test the hypotheses after ensuring the reliability and validity of each hypothesis. First, we applied the

structural equation model (SEM) in AMOS 24 to examine how teachers’ digital teaching competence was affected by ICT attitude, ICT skills, and data literacy (i.e., H1, H3, H5). Then, based on

ANOVA in SPSS, we tested hypotheses (i.e., H2, H4, H6, H7) regarding the differences in ICT attitude, ICT skills, data literacy and digital teaching competence between rural and urban

teachers. STRUCTURAL MODEL TESTING The structural model was analyzed by maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) in AMOS 24. As shown in Table 7, each indicator’s recommended value was matched by

the structural model’s fitting indices, indicating an acceptable standard of model fitting. Figure 1 summarized the results of SEM. The overall model had good prediction accuracy, with an

explained variance (R2) of 60.3% for digital teaching competence. Regarding the importance of the hypotheses, ICT attitude significantly improved digital teaching competence (_b_ = 0.152,

_p_ < 0.001), supporting H1. ICT skills significantly improved digital teaching competence (_b_ = 0.378, _p_ < 0.001), supporting H3. Data literacy significantly improved digital

teaching competence (_b_ = 0.374, _p_ < 0.001), supporting H5. The results of hypothesis testing were summarized in Fig. 1. ANOVA TESTING ANOVA was used to test hypotheses regarding

differences in ICT attitude, ICT skills, data literacy and digital teaching competence between rural and urban teachers. We included means of ICT attitude, ICT skills, data literacy and

digital teaching competence as dependent variables and the geographical location of teachers (i.e., rural vs. urban) as independent variables (Hsieh et al. 2011). The results of the variance

analysis were shown in Table 8, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. There were significant differences in ICT attitude, ICT skills, data literacy and digital teaching competence between rural and urban

teachers, thus supporting H2, H4, H6, and H7. DECOMPOSITION OF THE DIVIDE IN DIGITAL TEACHING COMPETENCE After the impact of ICT attitude, ICT skills, and data literacy on teachers’ digital

teaching competence and the existence of a digital divide had been identified, it was imperative to examine the relative significance of the determinants for mitigating the digital divide in

digital teaching competence. To determine the extent to which ICT attitude, ICT skills, and data literacy contributed to disparities between rural and urban teachers, we adopted the

Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method, which was appropriate for examining differences between groups. Some researchers applied the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method to investigate the

salary gap between genders (Bar-Haim et al. 2023), health and medical gap between rural and urban areas (Anyatonwu and San Sebastiá 2022), the transportation-related attitudes difference

among generations (Etezady et al. 2021), and the digital divide between races (Fairlie, 2004), etc. For example, Zhao et al. (2017) combined the analysis method to observe the differences in

some characteristics, such as education level, and parent-teacher interactions, that affected the cognitive abilities of rural and urban students, then explained the shrinking potential

pathways to narrow the gap. Basically, the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method mainly explained the difference in the means of the two sets of dependent variables by decomposing the linear

regression model. According to this method, the ordinary least squares (OLS) equations of the difference between rural and urban teachers were expressed as follows: $$Y_{r,i} = X_i^\prime

\beta _r + \varepsilon _{r,i}$$ (1) $$Y_{u,j} = X_j^\prime \beta _u + \varepsilon _{u,j}$$ (2) Among them, _Y__r,i_ and _Y__u,j_ were the digital teaching competence of rural teacher _i_ and

urban teacher _j_; _X_ was the vector of independent variables and control variables in the Hypotheses model; _β__r_ and _β__u_ were the regression estimation coefficients of rural and

urban teachers, respectively; _ε__r,i_ and _ε__u,j_ were random error terms. Therefore, the difference in the digital teaching competence of rural and urban teachers was expressed as

follows: $$\overline Y _r - \overline Y _u = \left[ {\underbrace {\left[ {\widehat \beta _r\left( {\overline X _r - \overline X _u} \right)} \right]}_{characteristics\,effect} + \underbrace

{\left[ {\widehat X_u\left( {\widehat \beta _r - \widehat \beta _u} \right)} \right]}_{association\,effect}} \right]$$ (3) As shown in Eq. (3), \(\overline Y _r - \overline Y _u\)

represented the observed difference in the average level of digital teaching competence between rural and urban teachers, \(\widehat \beta _r\) and \(\widehat \beta _u\) was a vector of

regression estimation coefficients for Eqs. (1) and (2). \(\overline X _r\) and \(\overline X _u\) were the vectors of the characteristics mean of rural and urban teachers. The difference in

digital teaching competence could be decomposed into two aspects: characteristic effect and association effect. The first term \(\widehat \beta _r\left( {\overline X _r - \overline X _u}

\right)\) represented the inter-group characteristic effect caused by the difference. Specifically, the characteristic effect, e.g., ICT attitude, ICT skills, data literacy, gender, and

years of teaching experience, was due to the different digital teaching competence of rural and urban teachers. The second term \(\overline X _u\left( {\widehat \beta _r - \widehat \beta _u}

\right)\) indicated that the association effect captured the inconsistency in the digital teaching competence of rural and urban teachers, owing to the regression estimation of the

differences in the coefficients in Eqs. (1) and (2). The association effect captured all the potential effects of differences in unobservable characteristics. We performed Blinder-Oaxaca

decomposition method in Stata 15. The results were shown in Table 9. The results showed that urban teachers were 0.116 points more competent in digital teaching than rural teachers. On the

one hand, the characteristics effect represented different levels of observed factors, including ICT attitude, ICT skills, data literacy, and other control variables, accounting for 79.3%

(0.092 / 0.116 = 79.3%) of the rural-urban numerical gap. On the other hand, the association effect due to the difference between rural and urban teachers in the unobserved part accounted

for 20.7%. Next, to determine the relative importance of the influencing factors, we analyzed the detailed characteristic effects and presented the decomposition results of each observed

factor. Table 10 displayed the contributions made by each factor to the explanation of rural and urban teachers’ digital teaching competence, indicating the relative importance of each

factor in explaining the difference in digital teaching competence between the rural and urban teachers. To be specific, data literacy and ICT skills were the most important factors

affecting the difference in digital teaching competence. They explained 43.10 and 25.86% of the variance in the numerical results, respectively. DISCUSSION WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL FACTORS

THAT INFLUENCE TEACHERS’ DIGITAL TEACHING COMPETENCE? As Fig. 1 was shown, the study built and analyzed a structural equation model, which revealed that ICT attitude, ICT skills, and data

literacy had significant positive correlations on digital teaching competence. Previous studies constructed models, confirming some factors influencing teachers’ digital teaching competence,

such as attitude (Scherer et al. 2019; Huang and Liaw, 2005), skills (Guillén-Gámez et al. 2023; Kaarakainen et al. 2018; Knezek and Christensen, 2016), gender, age (He et al. 2023) and so

on. Therefore, we focused on exploring the endogenous factors, including attitude and skills, combined with data literacy, which is rarely explored in prior studies but proven to be

necessary for teachers. First, we showed that the positive impact of ICT attitude on digital teaching competence (supported H1), which was consistent with some previous studies (Antonietti

et al. 2022; Hernández-Ramos et al. 2014). For example, Latorre-Cosculluela et al. (2023) investigated 345 university teachers and found that teachers’ ICT attitude had a direct impact on

digital teaching behaviors. However, some researchers found that ICT attitude was no significant impact on digital teaching competence (Wang and Zhao, 2021; Ndibalema, 2014). For example,

Lin et al. (2022), who focused on urban teachers, confirmed that ICT attitude were mediated by ICT skills but not directly significant to influence digital teaching competence. The

differences in research model and characteristics of the participants might account for the inconsistent in the conclusions. In this article, we investigated the groups including both rural

and urban teachers and found the important role in teachers’ digital teaching competence. Second, ICT skills had a significant impact on digital teaching competence (supported H3). Hatlevik

(2017) also discovered that ICT skills predicted changes in teachers’ digital competence. This evidence showed the role of ICT skills in teachers with higher digital teaching competence

(Hämäläinen et al. 2021; Hatlevik, 2017). Third, we confirmed data literacy was also significantly correlated with teachers’ digital teaching competence (supported H5), which was

underestimated in the prior studies. As previous studies proposed, teachers’ use of data in the classroom could improve their teaching (Coburn and Turner, 2011). Therefore, providing an

authentic experience of data literacy with teachers was the one of effective measure to enhance digital teaching competence. All in all, the above findings provided new insights for how to

promote teachers’ digital teaching competence. DOES THE DIVIDE IN DIGITAL TEACHING COMPETENCE EXIST BETWEEN RURAL AND URBAN TEACHERS? This study revealed that the digital divide existed.

Specifically, we found that the ICT attitude, ICT skills, data literacy, and digital teaching competence of rural teachers were significantly lower than those of urban teachers, shown in

Fig. 2, which confirmed concerns about the competence divide implicit in SDG 4 and recent research (United Nations, 2022; Thannimalai et al. 2022). First, ICT attitude of rural teachers was

lower than that of urban teachers. Teachers’ own ICT attitude and perceptions were proven to be one of the endogenous motivations influencing the digital divide, more important than the

exogenous motivation, such as availability of material resources (Soomro et al. 2020). In addition, this study revealed that the average of both rural and urban teachers in ICT attitude was

greater than 4.5, which mean that both rural and urban teachers had a high level of ICT attitude. It can be explained that teachers were no longer resisting ICT in teaching. In recent years,

more and more ICT initiatives about digital transformation were developed and implemented at the national level in China, such as the Pilot Work of Artificial Intelligence to Promote

Teacher Team Construction, the Action Plan for the Revitalization of Teacher Education (2018–2022), and so on. As we can see, developing ICT initiatives was effective in encouraging teachers

to accept the use of ICT (Chen et al. 2022; Jackman et al. 2021; Wu et al. 2019), and the attitude gap between rural and urban teachers towards ICT was gradually bridged. Second, we found

that rural teachers had lower ICT skills and data literacy than urban teachers, which pointed to ICT skills and data literacy gap between rural and urban teachers. Due to the late

introduction of ICT infrastructure and data use in rural schools (Wang and Zhao, 2021), teachers were exposed to the environment of digital technology and data in a shorter time.

Differentiated ICT skills and data use may exacerbate existing competence stratification, leading to a widening digital divide between the rural and urban teachers. Therefore, rural teachers

needed time and training to improve their skills for making full use of data. Third, there was a divide in digital teaching competence, indicating that rural teachers were poor at

possessing the technical, pedagogical, and didactic incorporation of digital technologies in education (Cabero-Almenara et al. 2021). Chen et al. (2023) also determined the significant

differences in the application of digital technology among rural, county, and urban schools. As Yu et al. (2023) found, urban teachers were better equipped to fully integrate digital

technologies into education, which indicated that rural teachers were facing the problem of difficult integration of digital technology and teaching. To conclude, these findings above

confirmed that there was indeed a second-order digital divide between rural and urban teachers, but the relative importance of determinants to the digital divide needed to be further

explored. WHAT IS THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE DIFFERENT FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE COMPETENCE DIVIDE? In order to further discover the underlying determinants that might lead to the

inequality of digital teaching competence between rural and urban teachers, the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method was adopted. The characteristics effects presented that the differences in

ICT attitude, ICT skills, data literacy, gender, and years of teaching experience between rural and urban teachers accounted for 79.3% of the divide in digital teaching competence, as shown

in Table 9. The above analysis signified that the 79.3% divide would be reduced, if rural and urban teachers had the same level of ICT attitude, ICT skills, data literacy, gender and years

of teaching experience, which was extremely important for mitigating the digital divide. To be more specific, Table 10 showed the contribution of each observed factor to the overall digital

divide of teachers in rural and urban areas. Data literacy and ICT skills were two key factors contributing to the divide in digital teaching competence, which explained the gap of 43.10 and

25.86%, respectively. These results revealed that data literacy and ICT skills were important determinants of reducing the digital teaching competence gap between rural and urban teachers.

How to improve teachers’ data literacy and ICT skills remained a key issue. As education went digital, schools tended to become more networked and data-driven. Previous research confirmed

that data already constituted an integral element in students’ learning (Gouseti et al. 2023; Conn et al. 2022), and data literacy became a necessary skill for teachers in making decisions

about student progress (Trantham et al. 2021). However, we found that data literacy was the lowest among several factors for both rural and urban teachers, which was a less prominent

determinant for teachers (Gouseti et al. 2023). Existing research reported that teachers had few curricula to prepare for data literacy, and they lacked confidence in their data literacy and

using data to assist teaching effectively (Shreiner and Guzdial, 2022). In this context, there was an urgent need to enrich teachers’ data literacy (Marín et al. 2021), especially in rural

areas, so that teachers should undergo training to equip themselves. What’s more, data literacy, which should cover both technical and pedagogical features, needed to be integrated into the

framework for teachers’ professional development (Conn et al. 2022; Cui and Zhang, 2022). At the region-wide level, further investment in teacher training programs needed to be encouraged to

help teachers integrate data to improve their teaching practices, particularly with regard to rural teachers. Teachers should gradually learn to make full use of data, such as students’

attendance, academic performance, interest, and so on, from the whole process of data collection, data analysis, data evaluation, and data application to optimize daily teaching. Teachers’

teaching decisions were no longer determined by a single subjective experience, making teachers’ teaching decisions more scientific and effective, benefiting from data. Regarding ICT skills,

our study found that ICT skills had a greater impact on the divide in teachers’ digital teaching competence. As we can see, the ICT skills of rural teachers still needed to be improved.

Although the construction of ICT infrastructure (including networks, hardware, and resources) in rural areas was gradually equipped in China. In fact, few teachers used teaching tools or

digital resources as teaching necessities and integrate them into their teaching. What’s more, some teachers with poor competence felt that the use of digital technologies would burden their

teaching. The above situation created a vicious circle in which the less teachers did apply technology, the more they lacked the ICT skills to use technologies, and their digital teaching

competence could not be improved. If rural teachers did not use the technologies, ICT infrastructures would become idle, and bridging the first-order digital divide, that is, building ICT

infrastructures, would be wasted. (Wu et al. 2022; Li et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2019). As proposed by the World Bank, if you’re going to invest in technology, invest in the training, support,

monitoring, and maintenance to make it work (David, 2021). Therefore, the most imperative initiative was to strengthen ICT training and support for rural teachers, which needed to be

supported and guaranteed by relevant government departments. In addition, rural school leaders needed to raise awareness to encourage teachers to integrate technology into their work and

teaching and to form a school-level digital culture by organizing related activities for teachers to co-innovate teaching, such as competitions, educational research, and so on. CONCLUSION,

IMPLICATION, AND LIMITATION This study contributed to the research on bridging the digital divide by providing evidence on the difference in digital teaching competence between rural and

urban teachers. Through investigating 11,784 rural and urban teachers who participated in the survey studies, this study firstly found positive effects between ICT attitude, ICT skills, and

data literacy on digital teaching competence. In addition, there was a digital divide between rural and urban teachers in the four factors listed above, of which data literacy and ICT skills

were key determinants of rural-urban divide in teachers’ digital teaching competence. In consequence, this study expanded the scope of research that contributes to the digital divide and

provided empirical evidence for some unexplored determinants in digital teaching competence between rural and urban teachers. To the best of our knowledge, few studies discovered that the

determinants contributed to the divide between rural and urban teachers’ digital teaching competence. Based on the empirical results, practice implications can be made from both macro

perspectives for policymakers and school leaders, and micro perspectives for teachers, particularly rural teachers. From macro perspectives, firstly, policymakers and school leaders need to

move beyond the narrow views that the digital divide is merely poverty and a lack of ICT infrastructure. What’s more, the digital divide also refers to the difference in digital teaching

competence between rural and urban teachers. Second, after recognizing the digital competence divide between rural and urban teachers, intervention plans should be designed, especially for

rural teachers, such as developing policies, providing teacher training, and initiating mutual aid activities between rural and urban teachers to promote exchanging and sharing their digital

teaching experience. Prior studies proved that, in rural schools, weak communication and interaction between teachers would negatively impact teachers’ use of digital technologies

(Galanouli et al. 2004). Third, teachers’ data literacy, ICT skills, and other factors should be integrated into the teacher training framework to alleviate the digital competence divide and

promote balanced education development. From micro perspectives, according to ICT skills, teachers need to be proficient in using digital equipment, web platforms, artificial intelligence

tools, and skilled in solving common problems with digital teaching that arise at any time in the classroom. About data literacy, teachers need to be proficient in retrieving data, analyzing

data, judging data, and making teaching decisions. Last but not least, teachers should master the digital teaching competence to support the whole teaching session, from preparing digital

media and resource, innovating pedagogy, integrating technology into teaching, providing targeted recommendations, and providing technical support for students. Although some meaningful

findings were proposed, the current study also had some limitations. First, our survey focused on one province in China, which was not broad enough. Second, the research findings might apply

to regions where ICT infrastructures were generally developed. Notably, for other countries or regions with poor Internet access or hardware, it might be more urgent and practical to pay

attention to building ICT infrastructures to bridge the first-order digital divide (Zhao et al. 2022). Third, this study highlighted that the digital divide existed, which was likely to

persist in the future. After further bridging the digital competence divide between teachers and students, the third-order digital divide, that is, the digital outcome divide, can be further

explored. DATA AVAILABILITY All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary file. REFERENCES * Aissaoui N (2022) The digital

divide: a literature review and some directions for future research in light of COVID-19. Glob Knowl Mem Commun 71(8/9):686–708. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-06-2020-0075 Article  Google

Scholar  * Antonietti C, Cattaneo A, Amenduni F (2022) Can teachers’ digital competence influence technology acceptance in vocational education? Comput Hum Behav 132:107266.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107266 Article  Google Scholar  * Anyatonwu OP, San Sebastián M (2022) Rural-urban disparities in postpartum contraceptive use among women in Nigeria: A

Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition analysis. Int J Equity Health 21(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01674-9 Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Aslan A, Zhu C (2017)

Investigating variables predicting Turkish pre-service teachers’ integration of ICT into teaching practices. Br J Educ Technol 48(2):552–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12437 Article 

Google Scholar  * Aydin M (2022) A multilevel modeling approach to investigating factors impacting computer and information literacy: ICILS Korea and Finland sample. Educ Inf Technol

27(2):1675–1703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10690-1 Article  Google Scholar  * Bar-Haim E, Chauvel L, Gornick JC et al. (2023) The Persistence of the Gender Earnings Gap: Cohort

Trends and the Role of Education in Twelve Countries. Soc Indic Res 165(3):821–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-022-03029-x Article  Google Scholar  * Ben Youssef A, Dahmani M, Ragni L

(2022) ICT use, digital skills and students’ academic performance: Exploring the digital divide. Information 13(3):129. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13030129 Article  Google Scholar  *

Cabero-Almenara J, Barroso-Osuna J, Gutiérrez-Castillo et al. (2021) The teaching digital competence of Health Sciences teachers. A study at Andalusian Universities. Int J Environ Res Public

Health 18(5):2552. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052552 Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Califf CB, Brooks S (2020) An empirical study of techno-stressors, literacy

facilitation, burnout, and turnover intention as experienced by K-12 teachers. Compu Educ 157:103971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103971 Article  Google Scholar  * Castaño Muñoz

J, Pokropek A, Weikert García L (2022) For to all those who have, will more be given? Evidence from the adoption of the SELFIE tool for the digital capacity of schools in Spain. Br J Educ

Technol 53(6):1937–1955. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13222 Article  Google Scholar  * Chen M, Zhou C, Man S, Li Y (2023) Investigating teachers’ information literacy and its differences in

individuals and schools: A large-scale evaluation in China. Educ Inf Technol 28(3):3145–3172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11271-6 Article  Google Scholar  * Chen M, Zhou C, Wang Y et

al. (2022) The role of school ICT construction and teacher information literacy in reducing teacher burnout: Based on SEM and fsQCA. Educ Inf Technol 27(6):8751–8770.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10989-7 Article  Google Scholar  * Chin WW (1998) Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS quarterly, vii-xvi * Coburn CE,

Turner EO (2011) Research on Data Use: A Framework and Analysis. Measurement: Interdiscip Res and Perspectives 9(4):173–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2011.626729 Article  Google

Scholar  * Colicol FL, Colicol-Rodriguez EL (2023) Urban-rural divide and COVID-19: engaging teachers to assess and improve the Philippine basic education-learning continuity plan. Asia Pac

J Educ 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2023.2195099 * Conn CA, Bohan KJ, Bies-Hernandez N et al. (2022) Expected data literacy knowledge and skills for early career teachers:

Perspectives from school and district personnel. Teach Teach Educ 111:103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103607 Article  Google Scholar  * Corkin MT, Meissel K, Peterson ER et al.

(2022) Are distinct modes of using digital technologies evident by age eight? Implications for digital divides. Comput Educ 191:104642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104642 Article

  Google Scholar  * Creighton TB (2018) Digital natives, digital immigrants, digital learners: An international empirical integrative review of the literature. Educ Leadersh Rev

19(1):132–140 Google Scholar  * Cui Y, Zhang H (2021) Educational neuroscience training for teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge construction. Front Psychol 12:792723.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.792723 Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Cui Y, Zhang H (2022) Integrating teacher data literacy with TPACK: A self-report study based on

a novel framework for teachers’ professional development. Front Psychol 13:966575. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.966575 Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Cui Y, Chen F,

Lutsyk A et al. (2023) Data literacy assessments: A systematic literature review. Assess Educ 30(1):76–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2023.2182737 Article  Google Scholar  * Dauvarte

L (2015) Teacher’s ICT competence in home economics and technologies lessons. Rural Environ Educ Pers 15:89–100 Google Scholar  * David KE (2021) Education Technology for Effective Teachers.

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/216711611954778027/pdf/Education-Technology-for-Effective-Teachers.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2023 * Dolan J (2016) Splicing the divide: A review of

research on the evolving digital divide among k-12 students. J Res Technol Educ 48(1):16–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.110314736 Article  Google Scholar  * Drent M, Meelissen M

(2008) Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively. Comput Educ 51(1):187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.001 Article  Google Scholar  *

ElSayary A (2023) The impact of a professional upskilling training programme on developing teachers’ digital competence. J Comput Assist Learn. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12788 * Estanyol

E, Montaña M, Fernández-de-Castro P et al. (2023) Digital competence among young people in Spain: A gender divide analysis. Comunicar 31(74):113–123 Article  Google Scholar  * Etezady A,

Shaw FA, Mokhtarian PL et al. (2021) What drives the gap? Applying the Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition method to examine generational differences in transportation-related attitudes.

Transportation 48:857–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-020-10080-5 Article  Google Scholar  * Fairlie RW (2004) Race and the Digital Divide. Contrib Eco Anal Policy 3(1):1–38.

https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0645.1263 Article  Google Scholar  * Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark

Res 18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 Article  Google Scholar  * Gabr HM, Soliman SS, Allam HK et al. (2021) Effects of remote virtual work environment during COVID-19

pandemic on technostress among Menoufia University Staff, Egypt: A cross-sectional study. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(38):53746–53753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14588-w Article  CAS

  Google Scholar  * Galanouli D, Murphy C, Gardner J (2004) Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT-competence training. Comput Educ 43(1):63–79.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.005 Article  Google Scholar  * Gebre E (2022) Conceptions and perspectives of data literacy in secondary education. Br J Educ Technol

53(5):1080–1095. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13246 Article  Google Scholar  * Goudeau S, Sanrey C, Stanczak A et al. (2021) Why lockdown and distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic

are likely to increase the social class achievement gap. Nat Hum Behav 5(10):1273–1281. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01212-7 Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Gouseti A, Lakkala M,

Raffaghelli J et al. (2023) Exploring teachers’ perceptions of critical digital literacies and how these are manifested in their teaching practices. Educ Rev 1–35.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2159933 * Gudmundsdottir GB, Hatlevik OE (2018) Newly qualified teachers’ professional digital competence: Implications for teacher education. Eur. J

Teach Educ 41(2):214–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1416085 Article  Google Scholar  * Guillén-Gámez FD, Ruiz-Palmero J, García MG (2023) Digital competence of teachers in the

use of ICT for research work: development of an instrument from a PLS-SEM approach. Educ Inf Technol 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11895-2 * Gummer E, Mandinach E (2015) Building

a conceptual framework for data literacy. Teach Coll Rec 117(4):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700401 Article  Google Scholar  * Gupta D, Singh G (2018) Competency of Teacher

Educators and Student Teachers towards E-learning Tools. the NCERT and no matter may be reproduced in any form without the prior permission of the NCERT 44(2):126 Google Scholar  *

Hämäläinen R, Nissinen K, Mannonen J et al. (2021) Understanding teaching professionals’ digital competence: What do PIAAC and TALIS reveal about technology-related skills, attitudes, and

knowledge? Comput Hum Behav 117:106672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106672 Article  Google Scholar  * Hatlevik OE (2017) Examining the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy,

their digital competence, strategies to evaluate information, and use of ICT at school. Scand J Educ Res 61(5):555–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1172501 Article  Google Scholar

  * He Z, Chen X, Guo S (2023) Digital competence and its components in basic education. Interact Learn Environ 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2211636 * Hernández-Ramos JP,

Martínez-Abad F, García Peñalvo FJ et al. (2014) Teachers’ attitude regarding the use of ICT. A factor reliability and validity study. Comput Hum Behav 31:509–516.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.039 Article  Google Scholar  * Hsieh JJPA, Rai A et al. (2011) Addressing digital inequality for the socioeconomically disadvantaged through government

initiatives: Forms of capital that affect ICT utilization. Inf Syst Res 22(2):233–253. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0256 Article  Google Scholar  * Hu L, Bentler PM (1998) Fit indices

in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods 3(4):424. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424 Article  Google Scholar  * Hu

L, Bentler PM (1999) Cut of criteria for ft indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6(1):1–55.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Article  Google Scholar  * Huang HM, Liaw SS (2005) Exploring users’ attitudes and intentions toward the web as a survey tool. Comput Hum Behav

21(5):729–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.020 Article  Google Scholar  * Ilomäki L, Paavola S, Lakkala M et al. (2016) Digital competence – an emergent boundary concept for policy

and educational research. Educ Inf Technol 21:655–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9346-4 Article  Google Scholar  * Jackman JA, Gentile DA, Cho NJ et al. (2021) Addressing the

digital skills gap for future education. Nat Hum Behav 5(5):542–545. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01074-z Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Kaarakainen MT, Kivinen O, Vainio T (2018)

Performance-based testing for ICT skills assessing: A case study of students and teachers’ ICT skills in Finnish schools. Univers Access Inf Soc 17:349–360.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0553-9 Article  Google Scholar  * Kaiser HF (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39(1):31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575 Article

  MATH  Google Scholar  * Kennedy-Clark S, Reimann P (2022) Knowledge types in initial teacher education: a multi-dimensional approach to developing data literacy and data fluency. Res Pract

8(1):42–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2021.1957140 Article  Google Scholar  * Keramati A, Afshari-Mofrad M, Kamrani A (2011) The role of readiness factors in E-learning outcomes: An

empirical study. Comput Educ 57(3):1919–1929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.005 Article  Google Scholar  * Khairani AZ (2017) Assessing urban and rural teachers’ competencies in

STEM integrated education in Malaysia. MATEC Web of Conferences. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20178704004 * Knezek G, Christensen R (2016) Extending the will, skill, tool model of

technology integration: Adding pedagogy as a new model construct. J Comput High Educ 28(3):307–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9120-2 Article  Google Scholar  * Latorre-Cosculluela

C, Sierra-Sánchez V, Rivera-Torres P et al. (2023) ICT efficacy and response to different needs in university classrooms: Effects on attitudes and active behavior towards technology. J

Comput High Educ 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09357-2 * Le TV, Galperin H, Traube D (2023) The Impact of Digital Competence on Telehealth Utilization. Health Policy Technol

100724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2023.100724 * Li G, Zhang X, Liu D et al. (2023) Education and EdTech during COVID-19: Evidence from a Large-Scale Survey during School Closures in

China. Comp Educ Rev 67(1):53–77. https://doi.org/10.1086/723027 Article  Google Scholar  * Li J, Shi Z, Xue E (2020) The problems, needs and strategies of rural teacher development at deep

poverty areas in China: Rural schooling stakeholder perspectives. Int J Educ Res 99:101496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101496 Article  Google Scholar  * Liao PA, Chang HH, Wang JH

et al. (2016) What are the determinants of rural-urban digital inequality among schoolchildren in Taiwan? Insights from Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition. Comput Educ 95:123–133.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.002 Article  Google Scholar  * Lin R, Yang J, Jiang F et al. (2022) Does teacher’s data literacy and digital teaching competence influence

empowering students in the classroom? Evidence from China. Educ Inf Technol 28(3):2845–2867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11274-3 Article  Google Scholar  * Liu S, Teddlie C (2009)

Case studies of educational effectiveness in rural China. J Educ Students Placed Risk 14(4):334–355 Article  Google Scholar  * Luo H, Zuo M, Wang J (2022a) Promise and reality: Using ICTs to

bridge China’s rural-urban divide in education. Educ Technol Res Dev 70(3):1125–1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10118-8 Article  Google Scholar  * Luo Y, Tack H, Valcke M, et al.

(2022b) Unpacking the rural-urban gap of teacher involvement in inquiry-based working: The roles of school research culture and infrastructure. Prof Dev Educ 1–18.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2022.2155985 * Lutz C (2019) Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Hum Behav Emerging Technol 1:141–148.

https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.140 Article  Google Scholar  * Mahdum M, Hadriana H, Safriyanti M (2019) Exploring teacher perceptions and motivations to ICT use in learning activities in

Indonesia. J Inf Technol Educ 18. https://doi.org/10.28945/4366 * Marín VI, Carpenter JP, Tur G (2021) Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of social media data privacy policies. Br J Educ

Technol 52(2):519–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13035 Article  Google Scholar  * Mitchell L, Nath J (2013) Developing self-efficacy in an urban education program. Int J of Case Method

Res Appl 25(3):160–167 Google Scholar  * Ndibalema P (2014) Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of Information Communication Technology (ICT) as a pedagogical tool in secondary schools in

Tanzania: The case of Kondoa district. Int J Educ Res 2(2):1–16 Google Scholar  * Nunnally JC (1975) Psychometric Theory - 25 Years Ago and Now. Educ Researcher 4(10):7–21.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X004010007 Article  Google Scholar  * Papamitsiou Z, Filippakis ME, Poulou M et al. (2021) Towards an educational data literacy framework: Enhancing the

profiles of instructional designers and e-tutors of online and blended courses with new competences. Smart Learn Environ 8(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00163-w Article  Google

Scholar  * Quaicoe JS, Pata K (2020) Teachers’ digital literacy and digital activity as digital divide components among basic schools in Ghana. Educ Inf Technol 25:4077–4095.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10158-8 Article  Google Scholar  * Ragnedda M, Ruiu M (2017) Social capital and the three levels of digital divide. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315455334-3

* Rana K, Greenwood J, Fox-Turnbull WH et al. (2018) A Shift from Traditional Pedagogy in Nepali Rural Primary Schools. 14(3):149–166 * Salemink K, Strijker D, Bosworth G (2017) Rural

development in the digital age: A systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural areas. J Rural Stud 54:360–371.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.001 Article  Google Scholar  * Sang G, Valcke M, Van BJ et al. (2011) Predicting ICT integration into classroom teaching in Chinese primary

schools: exploring the complex interplay of teacher‐related variables. J Comput Assist Learn 27(2):160–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00383.x Article  Google Scholar  *

Scherer R, Siddiq F, Tondeur J (2019) The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in

education. Comput Educ 128:13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009 Article  Google Scholar  * Shreiner TL, Guzdial M (2022) The information won’t just sink in: Helping teachers

provide technology-assisted data literacy instruction in social studies. Br J Educ Technol 53(5):1134–1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13255 Article  Google Scholar  * Simonsson M (2004)

Technology Use of Hispanic Bilingual Teachers: A Function of their Beliefs, Attitudes and Perceptions on Peer Technology Use in the Classroom. J Instr Psychol 31(3):257–266 Google Scholar  *

Soomro KA, Kale U, Curtis R et al. (2020) Digital divide among higher education faculty. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 17:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00191-5 Article  Google

Scholar  * Sun J, Przybylski R, Johnson BJ (2016) A review of research on teachers’ use of student data: From the perspective of school leadership. Educ Assess Eval Account 28:5–33.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9238-9 Article  Google Scholar  * Thannimalai T, Ponniah K, Nawastheen F et al. (2022) Attitudes and acceptance of information and communication technology

(ICT) among urban and rural teachers in teaching and facilitation. Int J Adv Appl Sci 9:16–23. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2022.07.003 Article  Google Scholar  * The Word Bank (2022)

Ending learning poverty and building skills: investing in education from early childhood to lifelong learning.

https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/7b8e1ecfbeb0507559134a346bd64bc2-0200022022/related/WB-EducationBrochure-OCT-11-22-final-e-version-SP.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2023 * Thomä J (2023) An

urban-rural divide (or not?): Small firm location and the use of digital technologies. J Rural Stud 97:214–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.12.020 Article  Google Scholar  * Tian

Y, Liu L, Wang X et al. (2021) Urban-Rural Differences in Physical Fitness and Out-of-School Physical Activity for Primary School Students: A County-Level Comparison in Western China. Int J

Environ Res Public Health 18(20):10813. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010813 Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Timotheou S, Miliou O, Dimitriadis Y et al. (2022) Impacts

of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools’ digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Int J Educ Inf Technol 1–32.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8 * Trantham PS, Sikorski J, de Ayala RJ et al. (2021). An item response theory and Rasch analysis of the NUDKS: a data literacy scale. Educ Assess

Eval Account 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-021-09372-w * UNESCO (2021) RewirEd Global Declaration on Connectivity for Education.

https://en.unesco.org/futuresofeducation/steering-digital-transformation-0. Accessed 20 Mar 2023 * United Nations (2022) The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022.

https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/. Accessed 20 Mar 2023 * van Dijk JAGM (2006) Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics 34(4):221–235.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004 Article  Google Scholar  * van Dijk JAGM (2020) Closing the digital divide. The role of digital technologies on social development, well-being of

all and the approach of the covid-19 pandemic [white paper].

https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/07/Closing-the-Digital-Divide-by-Jan-A.G.M-van-Dijk-.pdf. Accessed 22 Mar 2023 * Wahyudi, Treagust DF (2004) An

investigation of science teaching practices in Indonesian rural secondary schools. Res Sci Educ 34(4):455–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-5165-8 Article  Google Scholar  * Wang J,

Tigelaar DEH, Admiraal W (2019) Connecting rural schools to quality education: Rural teachers’ use of digital educational resources. Comput Hum Behav 101(1):68–76.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.009 Article  Google Scholar  * Wang Q, Zhao G (2021) ICT Self-Efficacy Mediates Most Effects of University ICT Support on Preservice Teachers’ TPACK:

Evidence from Three Normal Universities in China. Br J Educ Technol 52(6):2319–2339. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13141 Article  Google Scholar  * Wei L, Hindman DB (2011) Does the digital

divide matter more? Comparing the effects of new media and old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass Commun Soc 14:216–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205431003642707 Article 

Google Scholar  * Weninger C (2022) Skill versus Social Practice? Some Challenges in Teaching Digital Literacy in the University Classroom. Tesol Q 56(3):1016–1028.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3134 Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar  * Wu B, Yu X, Hu Y (2019) How does principal e-leadership affect ICT transformation across different school stages in

K-12 education: Perspectives from teachers in Shanghai. Br J Educ Technol 50(3):1210–1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12766 Article  Google Scholar  * Wu D, Yang X, Yang W et al. (2022)

Effects of teacher- and school-level ICT training on teachers’ use of digital educational resources in rural schools in China: A multilevel moderation model. Int J Educ Res 111:101910.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101910 Article  Google Scholar  * Wu J, Shen Z, Li Q et al. (2023) How urban versus rural residency relates to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A large-scale

national Chinese study. Soc Sci Med 320:115695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115695 Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Wu X, Xu T, Zhang Y (2021) Research on the

data analysis knowledge assessment of pre-service teachers from China based on cognitive diagnostic assessment. Curr Psychol 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01836-y * Yang HH, Zhu

S, MacLeod J (2018) Promoting Education Equity in Rural and Underdeveloped Areas: Cases on Computer-Supported Collaborative Teaching in China. Eur J Mathematics Sci Technol Educ

14(6):2393–2405. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89841 Article  Google Scholar  * Yang L, Martínez-Abad F, García-Holgado A (2022) Exploring factors influencing pre-service and in-service

teachers´ perception of digital competencies in the Chinese region of Anhui. Educ Inf Technol 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11085-6 * Yu L, Wu D, Zhu S et al. (2020) School and

Teacher Level Predictors for Students’ Information Literacy in Chinese Rural and Urban Education. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computers in Education * Yuen AH, Ma

WW (2008) Exploring teacher acceptance of e-learning technology. Asia-Pac J Teach Educ 36(3):229–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660802232779 Article  Google Scholar  * Zarifa D, Seward B,

Milian RP (2019) Location, location, location: Examining the rural-urban skills gap in Canada. J Rural Stud 72:252–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.10.032 Article  Google

Scholar  * Zhao G, Ye J, Li Z et al. (2017) How and why do Chinese urban students outperform their rural counterparts. China Econ Rev 45:103–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2017.06.006

Article  Google Scholar  * Zhao L, Cao C, Li Y et al. (2022) Determinants of the digital outcome divide in E-learning between rural and urban students: Empirical evidence from the COVID-19

pandemic based on capital theory. Comput Hum Behav 130:107177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107177 Article  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research is funded

by 2022 China National Social Science Key Project: Research on the Ethics and Limits of Artificial Intelligence in Education Scenarios (No: ACA220027). AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND

AFFILIATIONS * Jing Hengyi School of Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China Ruyi Lin, Juan Chu, Lizi Yang, Ligao Lou & Junfeng Yang * School of Marxism, Hangzhou Normal

University, Hangzhou, China Huiju Yu Authors * Ruyi Lin View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Juan Chu View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Lizi Yang View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Ligao Lou View author publications You can

also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Huiju Yu View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Junfeng Yang View author publications

You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS The authors confirm their contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: RL, JY, HY; data

collection: RL, JY, JC, LL; analysis and interpretation of results: RL, LY, JC; original draft preparation: RL, LY, JC, JY. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of

the manuscript. CORRESPONDING AUTHORS Correspondence to Ligao Lou, Huiju Yu or Junfeng Yang. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. ETHICAL

APPROVAL The author sought and gained ethical approval from Research Ethics Committee of the Jing Hengyi School of Education at Hangzhou Normal University (No. 2022028) on June 20, 2022. All

procedures in this study were in accordance with the institutional research and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. INFORMED CONSENT

Informed consent was obtained from all study participants prior to participation. Respondents’ participation in this study was voluntary. Before the survey began, we stated the purpose of

the study to the participants. A total of 11,784 sampled participants accepted to voluntarily participate in this study when they filled out the questionnaire after the researchers assured

them of anonymity and that their responses were solely used for academic purposes. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional

claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which

permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to

the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless

indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or

exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints

and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Lin, R., Chu, J., Yang, L. _et al._ What are the determinants of rural-urban divide in teachers’ digital teaching competence? Empirical

evidence from a large sample. _Humanit Soc Sci Commun_ 10, 422 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01933-2 Download citation * Received: 29 April 2023 * Accepted: 11 July 2023 *

Published: 17 July 2023 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01933-2 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative