Page 98 - International Perspectives on Effective Teaching and Learning in Digital Education

Sabina Ličen and Mirko Prosen

Table 2 Framework Synthesis
Framework component Strength rating Limitations rating Integration potential
Online peer feedback Medium – Focused on a Low – Limited to peer Medium – Can
framework (Kerman specific aspect of online feedback inform collaborative
et al., 4) learning learning
components
Digital technology Medium – Comprehensive Low – Limited evidence Medium – Provides
categories (Choi- overview of the technologies of impact a technological
Lundberg et al., 3) context for other
frameworks
DIGIQUAL framework High – Focused on the Medium – Limited to High – Can
(Manian & Pius, 3) perception of students one institution contribute to quality
measurement in an
integrated model
IDEAS framework High – Comprehensive Medium – Limited High – Provides
(Guàrdia et al., 1) transformational approach empirical testing overarching
principles for
integration
Community of Inquiry High – Well established Medium – Potential High – Can provide
(Kim & Gurvitch, ) in the literature on online for more sophisticated theoretical basis for
learning applications integrated model
Kirkpatrick’s four–level High – Established Medium – Weak High – Can be
model (Campbell et al., evaluation framework evidence of integrated with
19) effectiveness in the other quality
online context measures
Integrative assessment High – Comprehensive with Medium – Complex Medium – Can
model (Marciniak, 18) expert validation with 81 indicators provide detailed
evaluation criteria
Community of Practice Medium – Proven theory Medium – Unused in Medium – Can
(Smith et al., 17) the online context consider aspects of
social learning
Complex adaptive High – Novel systems Medium – Limited High – Can provide
systems framework approach empirical testing an overarching
(Wang et al., 15) systems perspective

In order to effectively design, implement and evaluate digital education
in higher education, various models and frameworks have been proposed in
the literature. These frameworks address different aspects of digital educa-
tion, including pedagogy, technology, assessment, and learner engagement.
Table  provides a summary of the main frameworks identified in the liter-
ature and analyses their strengths, limitations and potential for integration
(Table ).
The analysis of nine key frameworks and/or models for digital education in
higher education highlights their different contributions to the design, im-
plementation and evaluation of digital learning environments. Each frame-

98