Katja Hol

This thesis addresses a recurring gap in technology-enhanced learning research: promising learning technologies can demonstrate local pedagogical value, yet still fail to become meaningfully integrated in routine teaching practice in ways that remain sustainable and scalable. The core problem is therefore not whether the technology works in isolation, but how teachers and institutions can define, enact, evaluate, and coordinate pedagogically purposeful use so that learning-relevant processes are supported over time, across contexts, and across increasing implementation complexity. This problem is examined through a design-based research (DBR) line focused on DVR-enhanced presentation technology (Edison) in synchronous university teaching, with attention to design requirements for meaningful technology integration at both classroom and organisational levels (Euler & Sloane, 2014; McKenney & Reeves, 2019; The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003).

Part 1: Problem analysis and exploration
The thesis begins by narrowing its focus to higher education and by eliciting stakeholder perspectives on what enables meaningful integration of DVR-enhanced presentation technology in ways that remain sustainable and scalable.

Chapter 1 reports a Group Concept Mapping study across two university contexts (a distance-learning university and a face-to-face university) to generate and organise stakeholder-informed requirements (Kane & Rosas, 2018; Rosas & Kane, 2012). Five clusters with requirement areas are distinguished – Evaluation, Institutional Requirements, Maintenance and Training, Student Requirements, and Affordances and Infrastructure. Stakeholder ratings indicate that these are generally judged both important and feasible, with Maintenance and Training and Institutional Requirements emerging as early priorities.

Chapter 2 complements the problem exploration by bringing the qualitative perspective through the single-case interview study in a distance-learning university. In this study it is examined how teachers, media design experts, and institutional managers articulate factors that shape how DVR tools can be used pedagogically purposefully in routine teaching practice. Stakeholder interviews identify five themes : Context (where integration takes place), Technology (what the tool affords), Pedagogy (how affordances are used), Values (why integration is warranted), and Management (how alignment is maintained). Two mechanisms operationalise this synthesis: a three-point audit of hardware, software, and staff expertise, and a value-aligned design workflow that links affordances to pedagogical purpose and screens risks through Values-Aligned Risk Evaluation.

Together, Chapters 1–2 provide a stakeholder-informed mapping of criteria and requirements that define what needs to be facilitated for meaningful, sustainable, and scalable integration of DVR at university level, thus establishing a clear basis for the subsequent investigation.

Part II: Design and Construction
Chapter 3 is a practical response to the requirements identified in Part 1 by designing and refining Technology-Specific Instructional (TSI) templates for DVR-enhanced presentations in online distance higher education. Across iterative development with stakeholders, three templates are produced and validated as feasible and pedagogically appropriate formats – slide presentation, 3D model presentation, and virtual environment presentation – which extend familiar presentation-based teaching while enabling purposeful use of DVR affordances. Clear design requirements for DVR-enhanced presentations are specified (May et al., 2009; May & Finch, 2009; Murray et al., 2010). It is important to distinguish knowledge goals from affective goals (including situational interest and intrinsic motivation) and to align design choices such as teacher presence (teacher visibility), cueing, and background design with the intended learning goal; at the same time, cognitive load management is treated as central, emphasising cueing, segmentation, and coherence while avoiding excessive visual effects and camera movement that can distract rather than support learning (R. E. Mayer, 2005; R. E. Mayer & Moreno, 2003; Sweller, 1994, 2010). Practice-facing feasibility requirements are also specified: reliable enactment depends on teacher training and rehearsal, and in many cases on technical support during live delivery so that operational workload remains manageable within routine teaching practice.

Part III: Evaluation and Reflection
In Part 3 DVR-enhanced presentations are tested in authentic settings. It is also examined what supports meaningful integration when the focus shifts from a designed format to use in routine practice.

Three small-scale pilots are presented in Chapter 4 in a distance-learning university. A selected DVR-enhanced presentation template is compared with traditional video-conferencing on knowledge gain, cognitive load, and intrinsic motivation during synchronous online lectures (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Leppink et al., 2013; Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Sweller, 1994). Across the pilots, differences between conditions are largely non-significant, with one isolated result indicating lower intrinsic cognitive load in the VR-enhanced condition; overall, the pattern supports feasibility and local viability, but does not (yet) provide evidence of superiority.

Evaluation is extended in Chapter 5 to three universities by comparing stakeholder accounts of meaningful, sustainable and scalable integration of the DVR-enhanced presentation technology across minimal, medium, and advanced hardware setups. A framework analysis informed by Normalisation Process Theory examines how stakeholders make sense of the technology’s value and what is required for routine use. The findings show that the justification required increases with setup complexity: minimal hardware setups are valued mainly for pragmatic improvement to online lecture presentations; medium setups prompt stronger expectations for explicit educational function and scenario fit; and advanced setups add production-quality thresholds and a workable support–autonomy balance, with routine use often framed as product-oriented work requiring explicit resourcing, time allocation, and staging conditions (May et al., 2009; May & Finch, 2009; Murray et al., 2010). The conclusions further emphasise that meaningful integration is supported by differentiating implementation scenarios by setup level rather than pursuing uniform roll-out expectations, and by treating context as decisive for what counts as feasible, worthwhile, and sustainable in routine practice (May et al., 2009; May & Finch, 2009; Murray et al., 2010).

Across Chapters 4–5, the combined findings provide an empirical basis for refining earlier requirements and design principles, and for specifying the institutional conditions under which DVR-enhanced presentations are perceived as worth doing and workable at scale.

Part IV: Theoretical Understanding
Chapter 6 presents the Holistic Integration of Technology in Education (HITE) Framework as a first conceptualisation of organisational-level conditions that shape meaningful, context-sensitive, sustainable, and scalable technology integration in education. The framework is developed by integrating empirical insights from a Group Concept Mapping study (Chapter 1) across two institutions, as well as an interview-based single-institution case study (Chapter 2), and by connecting this empirical base with research on technology-enhanced learning and organisational change, alongside expert review. HITE framework structures analysis through five conceptual dimensions – Technology, Pedagogy, Context, Values, and Management – and treats Management as the coordinating work through which the other dimensions are aligned over time, including planning, resourcing, governance, evaluation, and sustainment (Chambers et al., 2013; May et al., 2009). A central contribution is the integration of drivers of meaningful integration into a single conceptual plane, positioning the framework as an analytic means for inquiry and deliberation. It motivates further work to translate the five dimensions into practical supports and to test how the framework functions across a wider range of institutional contexts.

General Discussion
The General Discussion brings the thesis evidence together in a structured way. First, thesis-level answers to the two research questions are synthesised across all chapters, with three design requirements presented for meaningful, sustainable and scalable integration of DVR-enhanced presentations in higher education (making pedagogical purpose explicit through Technology-Specific Instructional Templates (TSI templates), aligning knowledge goals and affective goals including situational interest and intrinsic motivation, and managing cognitive load and operational workload so routinised use remains feasible) (R. E. Mayer & Moreno, 2003; McKenney & Reeves, 2019; Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Sweller, 1994). Five synthesis propositions are then formulated as the structured answer to the second research question, specifying integration as an institution-level coordination challenge: early stakeholder definition of pedagogically purposeful use, coordination across interdependent institutional conditions, a scalable support plus autonomy operational model differentiated by setup level, evaluation as a continuous cycle supporting effectiveness and long-term viability, and Values treated as binding constraints shaping sustainability (Coburn, 2003; May & Finch, 2009; Murray et al., 2010; Orlikowski, 2000).

Apart from that, contributions and implications are consolidated across the full research line, centring on TSI templates as a practice-facing representation that links purpose, configuration, and enactment guidance, and on the Holistic Integration of Technology in Education (HITE) Framework as a conceptual structure for aligning Technology, Pedagogy, Context, Values, and Management when technology use is intended to become meaningful, sustainable and scalable (Jabareen, 2009; Penuel et al., 2011). Finally, limitations and future research directions are outlined at thesis level, emphasising the need for stronger longitudinal and comparative evidence, broader contextual testing, and further validation and operationalisation of templates and framework dimensions to support meaningful, sustainable and scalable integration beyond the studied settings (McKenney & Reeves, 2019; Penuel et al., 2011).