Page 93 - International Perspectives on Effective Teaching and Learning in Digital Education

Digital Standard for the Design of Inclusive and Effective Online Courses in Higher Education

and the creation of secure, user-friendly platforms that meet ethical stand-
ards. In addition, it emphasises the design of inclusive courses that promote
equality, equity and diversity and ensure accessibility for remote learners,
individuals with disabilities and those with limited resources (Czerkawski &
Lyman, 16).
Instructional design plays a key role in creating effective digital learning
programmes. Through systematic analysis, planning and implementation of
instructional strategies, instructional design ensures that learning process-
es are engaging, accessible and aligned with defined outcomes (Nagpal &
Kumar, ). Approaches such as learner-driven instructional models and
frameworks that promote active engagement are particularly effective in
improving student engagement and achievement (Leeds et al., 13). These
models also consider the cultural and political context of the regions in which
the education is delivered, thus ensuring relevance and sustainability.
This integrative literature review examines existing models and frame-
works for online learning in higher education. Its primary goal is to analyse
their strengths and limitations, synthesizing insights to propose a digital
standard for designing, implementing, and evaluating digital education.
The focus is on fostering inclusivity and ensuring course effectiveness. This
study addresses the research question: What existing models and frameworks
for digital education in higher education are identified in the literature, what are
their strengths and weaknesses, and how can their synthesis contribute to the
development of an innovative digital standard?

Methods
This integrative literature review employed a rigorous methodology in-
formed by the framework proposed by Whittemore and Knafl (5), which
accommodates diverse research designs, including qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed-method studies. The review process was divided into three key
stages: (1) conducting a systematic search of the literature; () performing an
evaluation and thematic analysis of the data, involving data reduction, or-
ganization for clarity, and deriving validated conclusions; and (3) synthesizing
and presenting the findings in a structured and coherent format.
To ensure transparency and robustness, the review adhered to the PRISMA
(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guide-
lines (Page et al., 1). These guidelines provided a systematic approach to
selecting and excluding studies, employing a four-phase flowchart to man-
age the review process. Additionally, the PRISMA checklist, comprising 7
essential criteria, guided the thorough reporting of key sections, including

93