Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters, Richard Heraud

Conceptual Frameworks for Designing Digital Learning

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2262-4_133-1


Instructors and/or instructional designers embarking on creating courses or programs employing information and communication technologies (ICTs) can inform and guide their designs by using a conceptual framework. Such design frameworks are vital for ensuring efficient and effective use of digital resources and technologies in any contemporary digital learning “ecology.” Seven conceptual frameworks are described below. Included is a classification of the variety of underlying philosophical positions, as defined by Feenberg (1999), ranging from determinism to instrumentalism to substantivism.

Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) Model

Designed by Puentedura (2005) to assist educators in the task of integrating technology into teaching and learning environments, the SAMR model considers four elements: substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition. The first two elements focus on the enhancement of learning, while the remaining two...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Bates, T. A. (2015). Choosing and using media in education: The SECTIONS model, Chapter 8. In Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning (pp. 304–361). Vancouver: Tony Bates Associates Ltd.. BC Open Textbooks. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/.Google Scholar
  2. Bates, T. A., & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: A framework for selecting and using technology. In Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success (pp. 75–105). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis–matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3–15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980701847115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Gibson, J. (1979). The theory of affordances. In The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (pp. 127–137). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  6. Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In C. Maddux, D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education (pp. 323–331). Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wm.edu/bookchapters/6/?utm_source=scholarworks.wm.edu%2Fbookchapters%2F6&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
  7. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Activity theory in a nutshell, Chapter 3. In Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design (pp. 29–72). Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  8. Koole, M. (2009). A model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training (Vol. Vol. 1, pp. 25–47). Edmonton: AU Press.Google Scholar
  9. Koole, M. L. (2018). A comparison of the uptake of two research models in mobile learning: The FRAME model and the 3-level evaluation framework. Educational Sciences, 8(3), 114.  https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London, UK: RoutledgeFalmerGoogle Scholar
  11. Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(5), 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9056-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laurillard, D., & Lujubojevic, D. (2011). Evaluating learning designs through the formal representation of pedagogical patterns. In C. Kohls & J. Wedekind (Eds.), Investigations of E-Learning Patterns: Context Factors, Problems and Solutions. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  13. Matthews, T., Rettenbury, T., & Carter, S. (2007). Defining, designing, and evaluating peripheral displays: An analysis using activity theory. Human Computer Interaction, 22(1), 221–261.Google Scholar
  14. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College, 108(6), 1017–1054.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Puentedura, R. (2005). Transformation, technology, and education in the state of Maine [Web log post]. Retrieved Sep 12, 2019, from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2006_11.html
  16. Scanlon, E., & Issroff, K. (2005). Activity theory and higher education: Evaluating learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 430–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Section editors and affiliations

  • David Parsons
    • 1
  1. 1.The Mind LabAucklandNew Zealand