Page 94 - International Perspectives on Effective Teaching and Learning in Digital Education

Sabina Ličen and Mirko Prosen

the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and acknowl-
edgments.

Eligibility Criteria
To ensure a thorough analysis, eligibility criteria for this integrative review
were established. Inclusion criteria required studies to be published as full-
text, peer-reviewed articles in English between 14 and 4. The review in-
cluded studies focusing on models, frameworks, or practices that inform the
development, implementation, or evaluation of digital education in higher
education, with an emphasis on fostering inclusivity and effectiveness.
Studies were excluded if they did not relate specifically to higher education,
lacked a focus on digital education and were published prior to the year 14.
Additionally, non-peer-reviewed materials such as conference abstracts, edi-
torials, letters, and commentaries were excluded.

Search Strategy
An integrative literature search was conducted in several electronic data-
bases, including PubMed, Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing
and Allied Health Literature) and ScienceDirect. The search focussed on
identifying studies examining models and frameworks for online learning
in higher education. A combination of keywords and Boolean operators
were used to refine the search and identify relevant studies. The search
terms included: ((‘online learning’[Title/Abstract] OR ‘e-learning’[Title/Ab-
stract] OR ‘digital education’[Title/Abstract]) AND (‘higher education’[Title/
Abstract] OR ‘university’[Title/Abstract]) AND (‘framework’[Title/Abstract] OR
‘model’[Title/Abstract]) AND (‘effectiveness’[Title/Abstract] OR ‘evaluation’[Ti-
tle/Abstract])) AND ((y_10[Filter]) AND (fft[Filter]) AND (english[Filter])).
Two researchers independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of all re-
trieved articles to assess their relevance. Studies that did not fulfil the inclu-
sion criteria were excluded. After this initial review, a full-text screening was
performed to further assess the eligibility of the remaining studies.
The search and selection process followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to ensure a struc-
tured and transparent approach to identifying relevant literature (Figure 1).
The selection of studies began with a systematic search of several databas-
es. A total of 39 records were identified, including 16 from PubMed, 43 from
Medline and CINAHL and 16 from ScienceDirect. After removing 7 dupli-
cate records, 57 studies remained for title and abstract screening.

94