Introduction
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 via an institution to check access.
References
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/.
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.
Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis–matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980701847115.
Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. New York: Routledge.
Gibson, J. (1979). The theory of affordances. In The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (pp. 127–137). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
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
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.
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.
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.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Scanlon, E., & Issroff, K. (2005). Activity theory and higher education: Evaluating learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 430–439.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Morrison, D., Koole, M. (2019). Conceptual Frameworks for Designing Digital Learning. In: Peters, M., Heraud, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2262-4_133-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2262-4_133-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2262-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2262-4
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education