Navigating New Norms: Lecturers’ Insights on Digital Learning Integration in Higher Education—A Case of Israel

Abstract

This study investigates the implementation of digital learning (DL) methodologies in Israeli higher education, focusing on lecturers’ perceptions and pedagogical transformations. Through in-depth interviews with fifteen lecturers from diverse disciplines, we examine the tension between DL and traditional ‘hevruta’ learning—a collaborative, discussion-based approach rooted in Israeli educational traditions. Thematic analysis reveals three key findings: (1) cultural and institutional factors as primary challenges, especially the tension between ‘hevruta’ learning and digital platforms; (2) a dichotomy in lecturers’ attitudes towards DL; and (3) the evolving role of lecturers from knowledge holders to facilitators. The study proposes the Cultural–Technological Integration Framework (CTIF), extending existing theoretical models by incorporating cultural compatibility as a crucial factor in technology acceptance. Our findings underscore the need for comprehensive institutional support and culturally sensitive approaches to DL implementation, providing valuable perspectives for policymakers and educators in diverse cultural contexts.

1. Introduction

The global COVID-19 pandemic has expedited the integration of digital learning modalities in higher education worldwide, necessitating a comprehensive reassessment of established educational paradigms. In Israel, the Council of Higher Education (CHE) launched a three-year program to enhance digital learning (DL) in academic institutions, mandating that 30% of courses include digital components. This initiative raises critical questions about the future direction of DL and the lessons learned from this enforced transition. While numerous studies have examined the immediate impacts of this shift, there remains a significant gap in our understanding of how lecturers perceive and implement these changes, particularly within the unique cultural context of Israeli higher education. This study aims to address this gap by exploring lecturers’ experiences and perceptions of DL integration, with a specific focus on the tensions between traditional ‘hevruta’ learning methods and digital platforms.

Digital transformation in higher education necessitates multifaceted changes beyond mere technological upgrades, encompassing cultural contexts, behaviors, and administrative regulations [1]. This multifaceted nature underscores the importance of understanding lecturers’ perspectives on DL implementation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly accelerated the adoption of digital learning, prompting a crucial distinction between emergency remote teaching and planned online learning [2]. This rapid transition has unveiled both challenges and opportunities in digital learning integration across various contexts. Recent studies have explored the multifaceted impacts of digital tools on pedagogy, student engagement, and learning outcomes, identifying key factors for successful integration [3,4]. However, these studies have predominantly focused on Western educational contexts, leaving a gap in our understanding of how digital learning is integrated within diverse cultural settings.

This study addresses this gap by examining the unique challenges and opportunities presented by digital learning integration in the Israeli higher education system, particularly in relation to traditional ‘hevruta’ learning practices. These studies emphasize the need for flexibility, enhanced student engagement, and ongoing professional development for educators. The evolving landscape of digital learning in higher education continues to present integration challenges and necessitates a redefinition of lecturers’ roles in increasingly digitalized educational environments [5,6]. The long-term impacts of emergency remote teaching on institutional policies and the changing perceptions of digital literacy among faculty members post-pandemic further underscore the dynamic nature of digital learning integration in higher education [7].

The mandated integration of DL, requiring at least 30% of academic courses to include digital components and a minimum of 3% to be fully accessible online, posed significant challenges and opportunities for pedagogical adaptation within a two-year timeline. Despite the increasing prevalence of DL, uncertainty remains among lecturers regarding its impact on pedagogical practices.

Recent studies have highlighted the evolving nature of digital learning in higher education. For instance, some examined the long-term impacts of emergency remote teaching on institutional policies, while others explored the changing perceptions of digital literacy among faculty members post-pandemic [7]. These studies underscore the dynamic nature of digital learning integration in higher education.

This study seeks to explore the integration policies of DL from lecturers’ perspectives, aiming to understand their views on DL integration within their institutions and its implications for their roles. This analysis sheds light on their perceptions and critiques and examines the transformative effects on their pedagogical roles. By focusing on a single academic institution, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of how DL is reshaping higher education, which is crucial for effectively designing and implementing future DL programs.

The Israeli higher education context has unique characteristics that may influence the integration of digital learning. One such feature is the widespread use of ‘hevruta’ learning, a traditional Israeli method of analyzing and discussing texts in pairs or small groups. This collaborative discussion-based approach has been a cornerstone of Israeli learning for centuries and remains prevalent in many Israeli academic settings. The potential tension between this traditional method and digital learning platforms presents a unique challenge in the Israeli context.

The ‘hevruta’ style, deeply ingrained in Israeli academic tradition, involves pairs of students analyzing and debating texts together. Lecturer A3 explained the tension: “The intimate, face-to-face nature of ‘hevruta’ learning is difficult to replicate in a digital environment. We’re struggling to find ways to maintain this valuable tradition while embracing digital tools”.

This study’s significance lies in its potential to inform policy and practice in higher education, particularly in contexts where traditional teaching methods intersect with digital innovation, offering insights that can guide the development of culturally sensitive digital learning strategies.

Specifically, this study aims to explore lecturers’ perceptions of digital learning integration in Israeli higher education, addressing the following research questions:

• How do lecturers perceive the impact of digital learning on their teaching practices?
• What challenges and opportunities do lecturers identify in the integration of digital learning?
• How do lecturers view their evolving roles in the context of digital learning integration?

1.1. Pedagogies Changes in the Digital Era

The digital era, particularly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has profoundly transformed the landscape of teaching and learning, redefining the significance of educational spaces and methodologies [7,8]. This technological revolution has compelled education systems worldwide, including in Israel, to adopt new perspectives on contemporary education and learning [8,9].

1.1.1. Definitions of DL and Related Concepts

Distance Learning (DL), evolving from what was earlier known as e-learning, encompasses any learning that utilizes electronic devices. Previous research [9] defined DL as the overall pedagogical means applied through information and communication technologies (ICT) to enhance learning, including methods that incorporate ICT in an online learning environment.

Remote Learning (RL), a phenomenon emerging in the digital era, is characterized by physical separation between lecturers and students. Other research [10] posited that RL enables academic institutions globally to facilitate teaching and learning without requiring a physical presence, typically through live lessons, asynchronous materials, and online examinations.

Digital pedagogy, a term closely related to DL and RL, defines the educational goals and learner profiles for the twenty-first century, adapting to the dynamic, variable reality in which learners operate [11,12].

1.1.2. Features and Characteristics of DL

DL is distinguished by several key features: (a) customization and flexibility; (b) teaching management performed by the lecturer, providing significant learning support; (c) facilitation of autonomous, individual, and collaborative learning; (d) enhanced collaboration and socialization; (e) specialized DL materials; and (f) recency and transparency [13]. These features enable DL to leverage learning through integrated technologies, increasing accessibility, student engagement, and learning efficiency.

1.1.3. Impacts of DL on Teaching and Learning

The digital era has had far-reaching effects on pedagogy and teaching. It has accelerated the use of telecommunication technologies in education, making the transition to online teaching increasingly common in academic institutions [2]. This shift necessitates that lecturers adapt to new technologies, digital tools, and techniques to create significant learning experiences [7,14,15].

The COVID-19 pandemic further catalyzed this transformation, significantly altering lecturers’ roles and intensifying the integration of technology in education. This created new opportunities for learning and innovation, prompting education and academic systems in Israel to develop programs that integrate technology into teaching [16,17].

Online learning requires renewed thinking about pedagogical strategies and a reconceptualization of the lecturer’s role, including the adoption of innovative learning methods [18]. Combining online learning with traditional frontal learning can enhance the overall learning experience [10].

In conclusion, the integration of ICT into the routine lives of citizens and learners has challenged education systems to adjust [7,14]. As a result, technologically integrated learning has emerged under various labels, including remote learning, online learning, digital learning, and digital pedagogy, marking a significant shift in the educational paradigm.

The transition to digital learning also necessitates new strategies for professional development among lecturers. Previous authors [19] proposed a model with ‘building blocks’ for effective lecturer professional development aimed at educational innovation with IT. This model highlights key components such as active learning, collaborative learning, and technological knowledge, which are crucial for successful digital learning integration.

1.2. The Lecturer’s Role in the Process of Integrating Digital Learning

Despite notable successes, the integration of Digital Learning (DL) methods within academic institutions faces substantial challenges, predominantly arising from a preference among many educators for traditional teaching methods. Conventional teaching often fails to sufficiently foster significant knowledge creation or understanding, thereby necessitating pedagogical innovation [2].

There is a dichotomy among educators: those committed to traditional direct instruction models often resist technological integration, whereas advocates of constructivist approaches are more inclined to adopt technology-enhanced learning, recognizing its capacity to cultivate active, engaged learning environments [7]. This sentiment is echoed by the crucial role of lecturers in online courses, particularly their responsiveness and supportive capabilities, which are vital for effective learning [20].

The dynamic of interaction between lecturers and students in online settings underscores the importance of continuous feedback and learner reinforcement, highlighting the need to redefine teaching strategies to improve educational outcomes [21]. The successful deployment of DL therefore requires significant alterations in teaching and assessment methodologies, urging lecturers to modify their roles to capitalize on the new opportunities presented by digital technologies [2,10].

As DL becomes increasingly foundational to modern education, lecturers are required to evolve to meet the demands of online pedagogy. Five critical roles for educators in this context are identified: designing learning experiences suitable for digital platforms, mastering and supporting technology use, teaching relevant learning strategies, fostering a collaborative learning community, and promoting learner autonomy [22]. These roles are crucial for cultivating a responsive and engaging educational environment [23,24,25].

Highlighting the transformative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on educational systems, it is argued that the initial reactive shift to digital teaching has evolved into a fundamental component of education today [26]. Supporting this perspective, the design of hybrid courses demands meticulous planning, flexibility, and a commitment to maximizing student engagement [27].

In response to these evolving dynamics, this study seeks to answer critical questions about how lecturers perceive the integration of digital learning into their teaching practices and the changes they observe in their roles. Addressing these questions will help shape future educational strategies and offer insights into lecturers’ perspectives on the evolving landscape of digital education.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

This investigation employed a qualitative, interpretive methodology to illuminate the complex and nuanced perspectives of lecturers regarding the incorporation of digital learning strategies in higher education. The qualitative methodology was selected based on its capacity to unravel the intricate tapestry of lived experiences and perceptions [28], thereby aligning with our objective to gain nuanced insights into the complex phenomenon of digital learning integration within academic institutions.

The choice of a qualitative methodology for this study was driven by the complex and nuanced nature of digital learning integration in higher education. Our research questions sought to explore the lived experiences, perceptions, and adaptations of lecturers—aspects that are best captured through in-depth, open-ended inquiry. Qualitative methods allow for the emergence of unexpected themes and provide the flexibility to delve deeper into individual experiences, which is crucial when examining a rapidly evolving field like digital education. Furthermore, given the relatively nascent stage of comprehensive digital learning integration in Israeli higher education, an exploratory qualitative approach was deemed most appropriate to build a foundational understanding that can inform future, potentially mixed-method or quantitative studies.

While quantitative or mixed-method approaches could offer valuable insights into digital learning integration, a qualitative approach was deemed most appropriate for this study due to its exploratory nature. The complex and evolving landscape of digital learning in higher education, particularly in the Israeli context, necessitates an in-depth understanding of lecturers’ experiences and perceptions that quantitative methods alone might not capture. This qualitative approach allows for the emergence of nuanced themes and unexpected insights, which are crucial in developing a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in digital learning integration.

To address the limitations of our initial study, we expanded our sample to include 45 lecturers from three different higher education institutions in Israel: a research-intensive university, a teaching-focused college, and a religious seminary. This diverse sample allows for a more comprehensive exploration of digital learning integration across various institutional contexts. The expanded study followed the same methodological approach as the initial study, with interviews conducted and analyzed using the same protocol.

2.2. Participant Characteristics and Sampling

Employing a purposive sampling strategy, we recruited 15 lecturers from diverse academic departments at the institution. This sample size, while modest, aligns with recommendations for qualitative inquiries that prioritize the depth and richness of data over breadth [29]. To ensure the adequacy of our sample, we continued interviews until we achieved theoretical saturation, observing thematic redundancy in later interviews [30]. The concept of information power further supported our approach, which posits that the adequacy of sample size in qualitative studies is determined by factors such as study aim, sample specificity, use of established theory, quality of dialogue, and analysis strategy [31].

To enhance the representativeness of our sample, we deliberately included participants with varying levels of digital literacy and attitudes toward DL integration, categorized as enthusiastic adopters, cautious implementers, and skeptical users based on a pre-selection questionnaire. This stratification allowed us to capture a broad spectrum of perspectives and experiences.

The criteria for participant selection were meticulously crafted to ensure a diverse yet informed sample:

• A minimum of three years of pedagogical experience within the institution, ensuring a foundational understanding of the academic context.
• Active engagement in at least one course with substantial digital learning components, guaranteeing firsthand experience with the phenomenon under study.
• Representation across a spectrum of academic disciplines, facilitating a holistic understanding of digital learning integration across diverse epistemological traditions.

This purposive sampling approach facilitated the selection of information-rich cases, enabling an in-depth exploration of the research questions [32]. While we acknowledge that our focus on a single institution may constrain generalizability, this approach afforded us the opportunity to conduct a deep, contextualized analysis of digital learning integration within a specific institutional culture and infrastructure.

To ensure diverse perspectives, we included participants with varying attitudes toward digital learning, assessed through a pre-selection questionnaire on technology proficiency and stance on digital learning. We used a pre-selection questionnaire to categorize potential participants into three groups: enthusiastic adopters, cautious implementers, and skeptical users. This categorization was based on self-reported technology proficiency and attitudes towards digital learning. Our final sample included 5 participants from each category, allowing us to capture a spectrum of experiences and attitudes. This approach helped mitigate potential bias towards technologically inclined lecturers and provided a more comprehensive view of the challenges and opportunities in digital learning integration.

Table 1. Participant details.

Participant Code	Age	Department/s to Which Participants Belong	Teaching Courses
Y1	48	Communication; multidisciplinary social sciences	Computer-mediated communication; quantitative research methods
S1	41	Health systems administration (BA & MA)	Public health
D1	48	Master in school counseling; education; psychology	Psychology
C1	74	Nursing	Leadership & management
Cl1	59	Human services; Master in organizational development & counseling	Organizational development & counseling & managing human resources in organizations
A1	49	Master in health systems administration; Master in public administration & policy	Health economics, welfare economics
Z1	36	Psychology; Master in educational psychology; Master in school counseling	Psychology
E1	50	Behavior sciences; psychology	Cognitive psychology
M1	56	Health systems management (BA & MA); Master in nursing	Statistics & research methods
A2	50	Master in organizational development & counseling; health systems management	Research, management, & organizations
V1	51	Communication; multidisciplinary social sciences	Communication
L1	51	Behavior sciences; health systems management	Education, psychology, interpersonal communication
A3	49	Human services; behavioral sciences; sociology & anthropology; health systems management	Organizational sociology, research methods
G1	49	Social work; criminology	Criminology
B1	52	Health systems management (BA & MA)	Management & health

presents a comprehensive overview of the study participants, including their assigned codes, ages, affiliated departments, and teaching courses. The 15 participants range in age from 36 to 74 years old and represent a diverse array of academic fields, including communication, health systems management, psychology, nursing, human services, and social work. Many participants are involved in multiple departments or teach across both undergraduate and graduate levels, offering courses in subjects such as computer-mediated communication, public health, psychology, organizational development, health economics, and research methods.

2.3. Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews, each lasting between 60 and 90 min, were conducted with all participants. The interview protocol, grounded in extant literature and our research questions, underwent a rigorous piloting process with two lecturers, followed by subsequent refinement to ensure its efficacy and relevance. Key topics covered in the interviews included participants’ experiences with digital learning integration, perceived challenges and opportunities, and their views on the evolving role of lecturers in digital environments. All interviews were audio-recorded and meticulously transcribed verbatim to preserve the integrity and nuance of the data, adhering to best practices in qualitative research [18]. To enhance reliability, we employed member checking, allowing participants to review their interview transcripts and provide feedback or clarifications.

2.4. Data Analysis

Our analytical approach was guided by the six-phase thematic analysis framework [33], a robust method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns within qualitative data:

• Data familiarization through iterative and immersive transcript reading.
• Systematic generation of initial codes.
• Collation of codes into potential themes.
• Rigorous review and refinement of themes.
• Precise definition and naming of themes.
• Production of a scholarly report.

Our thematic analysis generated approximately 150 initial codes, which were refined into 15 broader thematic units and ultimately consolidated into 6 main themes that structure our results. After the initial coding, we entered a second phase where we critically examined and refined our codes. This involved merging similar codes, splitting overly broad codes, and ensuring consistency in our coding framework. This iterative process helped us to develop more robust and meaningful themes.

To enhance analytical rigor, two researchers independently conducted the initial coding process, subsequently engaging in collaborative discussions to refine the coding framework. This process was facilitated by ATLAS.ti 24 software, which enabled systematic organization and analysis of the rich qualitative data. The themes were developed through an iterative process of coding, theme generation, and critical review, ensuring a robust and defensible analytical outcome.

2.5. Ensuring Rigor and Trustworthiness

To bolster the credibility and trustworthiness of our findings, we implemented a tripartite approach:

• Member checking: Participants were invited to review their interview transcripts and provide feedback, ensuring an accurate representation of their perspectives.
• Peer debriefing: Regular, in-depth discussions among the research team served to challenge assumptions, explore alternative interpretations, and mitigate potential researcher bias.
• Audit trail: Meticulous records of all methodological decisions and data analysis procedures were maintained, ensuring the transparency and replicability of the research process.

In recognition of potential bias stemming from the selection of technologically proficient participants, we intentionally included individuals with varying levels of digital literacy and diverse attitudes toward technology integration. During the analytical phase, particular attention was paid to divergent views and experiences, ensuring a balanced and comprehensive representation of perspectives on digital learning integration.

3. Results

The results of this study are presented in a structured manner to highlight the key themes that emerged from our thematic analysis. These themes provide a detailed understanding of the lecturers’ perspectives and the multifaceted nature of digital learning integration in the context of Israeli higher education. Our analysis revealed six main themes: (1) Defining Digital Learning, (2) Pedagogical Impacts, (3) Motivation for Integration, (4) Experiences with Digital Learning, (5) Systemic and Institutional Challenges, and (6) Future Directions and Institutional Recommendations. Additionally, we present unexpected findings that offer unique insights into the integration of digital learning in the Israeli context.

These themes were selected based on their frequency across interviews, their relevance to our research objectives, and their potential to provide novel insights into the integration of digital learning in the Israeli higher education context. The order of presentation follows a logical progression from defining digital learning (3.1) through its impacts (3.2), motivations for adoption (3.3), experiences (3.4), challenges (3.5), and future directions (3.6), culminating in unexpected findings (3.7) that offer unique contributions to the field.

3.1. Defining Digital Learning

Respondents conceptualize digital learning as a paradigm-shifting augmentation of conventional pedagogical approaches. Lecturers appreciate digital tools for their ability to supplement and enrich traditional classroom instruction. For instance, Lecturer V1 elaborated on how digital integration does not seek to replace but rather augment face-to-face teaching: “Digital Learning integrates digital tools into regular learning, in other words, not to eliminate frontal teaching but instead to improve it using all kinds of means”.

Furthermore, Lecturer Z1 underscored the strategic deployment of these tools to broaden the teaching scope: “Teaching that is oriented towards digital learning involves a toolkit that must be employed strategically to bolster pedagogical goals. This enriches the array of methodologies available to the lecturer, enhancing our ability to refine teaching practices”.

However, the concept of digital learning occasionally faces misconceptions regarding its application and objectives. Lecturer E1 cautioned against these misunderstandings: “The term digital learning can be misleading. It is not merely about the digital tools but about fostering an active learning environment. The focus should be on learning outcomes, not the tools themselves”.

While the definition of digital learning provides a foundation, it is crucial to examine its practical impact on pedagogical practices.

3.2. Pedagogical Impacts

Lecturers reported that digital learning platforms facilitate a more dynamic interaction with educational content, promoting active, collaborative, and experiential learning. The flexibility of digital tools allows for the exploration and implementation of diverse instructional strategies, which can lead to more personalized and engaging learning experiences.

Lecturers reported using various digital tools to facilitate these dynamic interactions. These included learning management systems (e.g., Moodle), video conferencing platforms (e.g., Zoom), interactive assessment tools (e.g., Kahoot), and collaborative document-editing software (e.g., Google Docs).

Participants consistently reported that digital technologies enhanced pedagogical objectives, improving teaching efficacy and student engagement through diversified instructional approaches. These diversified instructional approaches included flipped classroom models, where students engaged with lecture content online before class discussions; online collaborative projects utilizing shared digital workspaces; virtual simulations for practical skill development; and adaptive learning systems that personalized content based on student performance. For example, the use of interactive simulations and real-time data analysis tools was mentioned as particularly effective in enhancing the learning experience and engagement in STEM subjects.

These findings align with and extend [34] the TPACK framework, illustrating how lecturers are developing new forms of technological pedagogical content knowledge specific to digital learning environments. For instance, the implementation of flipped classroom models demonstrates the integration of technological knowledge (managing online content delivery) with pedagogical knowledge (facilitating in-depth discussions) and content knowledge (subject-specific material). Similarly, the use of virtual simulations in STEM subjects exemplifies the intersection of all three knowledge domains in the TPACK framework.

Furthermore, the diverse instructional approaches reported, such as collaborative online projects, support [35] the theory of connectivism. This theory emphasizes the role of networks and connections in learning, which is evident in how digital tools facilitate networked learning experiences. For example, the use of shared digital workspaces allows students to connect, collaborate, and construct knowledge collectively, aligning with connectivist principles.

Having explored the pedagogical impacts of digital learning, it is important to understand what motivates lecturers to integrate these tools into their teaching.

3.3. Motivation for Integration

The integration of digital learning was often initiated under varying circumstances. Some lecturers were propelled by institutional mandates, especially during the urgent shift caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, while others were motivated by personal interest and prior experience with digital tools. Lecturer A2 reflected on the initial compulsion: “Initially, it wasn’t a decision but a necessity driven by the pandemic. This forced adaptation led us all to swiftly embrace and learn the new digital teaching methods”.

Conversely, Lecturer Cl1 represented a segment of the academic staff who were early adopters of digital tools, incorporating them into their teaching practices long before institutional mandates: “I’ve been integrating tools like Kahoot and various internet resources into my teaching for years. The pandemic merely accelerated a process I had already embraced”.

The motivations for adopting digital learning tools naturally led to varied experiences in their implementation.

3.4. Experiences with Digital Learning

The transition to digital learning was marked by a spectrum of experiences among lecturers, ranging from enthusiastic adoption to significant challenges in adjusting to the new teaching paradigm. Positive experiences were often characterized by a sense of innovation and the development of new pedagogical skills. However, challenges such as the difficulty in managing remote classrooms and ensuring consistent student engagement were also prominent.

Lecturer B1 expressed enthusiasm about the new possibilities: “Digital tools have opened up a whole new world of interactive learning. I can now use real-time polls and collaborative documents to engage students in ways I never could before”. On the other hand, Lecturer C1 voiced concerns: “I find it challenging to maintain the same level of personal connection with students in a digital environment. It’s harder to read their body language and gauge their understanding”.

For instance, some lecturers expressed difficulties in relinquishing direct control over all aspects of course delivery, which led to frustrations, particularly in managing asynchronous learning segments. The struggle to maintain the same level of interpersonal connection and immediacy available in traditional settings was a significant concern.

While individual experiences vary, it is essential to consider the broader institutional context that shapes these experiences.

3.5. Systemic and Institutional Challenges

A critical aspect of the feedback focused on the systemic and institutional barriers to effective digital learning integration. Lecturers pointed out the lack of adequate recognition and compensation for the additional workload associated with designing and implementing digital courses. Lecturer D1 highlighted this disparity: “Despite the substantial efforts required to develop and run digital courses, these are often not reflected in our academic evaluations or advancement”.

The findings also suggest a need for institutional policies to evolve to better support the unique demands of digital education. This includes providing ongoing professional development, technical support, and appropriate recognition and incentives for lecturers who invest in developing digital pedagogy skills.

In light of these systemic challenges, lecturers have developed recommendations for the future of digital learning integration.

3.6. Future Directions and Institutional Recommendations

Lecturers advocated for a thoughtful approach to the continued integration of digital learning, suggesting that it should be viewed as a complementary tool rather than a complete overhaul of traditional education. The need for strategic planning, adequate resource allocation, and comprehensive training programs was emphasized to ensure that digital learning can be sustainably integrated into the broader educational framework.

Despite these forward-looking recommendations, our study also uncovered several unexpected findings that provide unique insights into the integration of digital learning in the Israeli context.

3.7. Unexpected Findings

The tension between digital learning and the ‘hevruta’ tradition emerged as a central theme, revealing complex dynamics of cultural preservation and technological adaptation. Lecturers expressed a spectrum of responses to this tension, which we categorized into three main approaches:

• Cultural Resistance: Some lecturers viewed digital tools as fundamentally incompatible with ‘hevruta’ learning. For instance, Lecturer A5 stated, “The essence of ‘hevruta’ is lost in digital spaces. The energy of face-to-face debate cannot be replicated online”.
• Adaptive Integration: Others sought ways to blend digital tools with ‘hevruta’ principles. Lecturer B3 explained, “We’ve experimented with digital annotation tools that allow pairs to engage in ‘hevruta’-style discussions asynchronously. It’s different, but it preserves the core of collaborative interpretation”.
• Transformative Synthesis: A minority of lecturers saw the potential for digital tools to enhance ‘hevruta’ learning. Lecturer C7 enthusiastically shared, “Virtual reality could allow us to create immersive ‘hevruta’ experiences that transcend physical limitations”.

These varied approaches highlight the complex interplay between cultural traditions and technological innovation in the Israeli higher education context.

Additionally, we found a surprising dichotomy in lecturers’ attitudes towards digital learning integration. While some lecturers embraced digital tools as a means to enhance student engagement and provide more flexible learning options, others viewed them as a threat to academic rigor and the development of critical thinking skills. For example, Lecturer A3 enthusiastically reported using online forums to extend classroom discussions, stating, ‘Digital platforms allow for deeper, more reflective contributions from students who might not speak up in class’. In contrast, Lecturer C1 expressed concerns that ‘The instant-gratification nature of digital tools might erode students’ ability to engage in sustained, deep analysis of complex texts’.

These unexpected findings highlight the unique aspects of digital learning integration in Israeli higher education and contribute new perspectives to the existing body of knowledge. They underscore the need for culturally sensitive approaches to digital learning implementation and reveal the complex interplay between technological innovation and deeply rooted educational traditions.

In summary, our findings reveal a complex landscape of digital learning integration in Israeli higher education. The tension between traditional ‘hevruta’ learning and digital platforms emerges as a central theme, alongside a spectrum of lecturer attitudes and experiences. The evolving role of lecturers and the institutional challenges they face highlight the multifaceted nature of this educational transformation. These results provide a foundation for understanding the unique cultural and pedagogical considerations in digital learning integration within the Israeli context.

Having presented the key themes that emerged from our analysis, we now turn to a discussion of these findings, their theoretical implications, and their practical significance for digital learning integration in higher education.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Our thematic analysis revealed three key areas of significance that address our research questions and offer comprehensive insights into lecturers’ perceptions of digital learning integration in Israeli higher education: (1) the tension between traditional ‘hevruta’ learning and digital platforms, (2) the diverse spectrum of lecturer attitudes towards digital learning, and (3) the evolving role of lecturers from knowledge holders to facilitators. These findings illuminate a complex interplay between technological innovation, cultural traditions, and pedagogical practices, contributing to the broader discourse on digital learning integration by highlighting the crucial role of the cultural context in shaping technology adoption and use in higher education settings.

Our study demonstrates that lecturers perceive digital learning as a transformative force that enhances their teaching practices, albeit with significant implementation challenges. We identified both opportunities (such as increased engagement and flexibility) and obstacles (including cultural barriers and concerns about academic rigor) in the integration process. Notably, our research reveals a significant shift in lecturers’ roles from knowledge holders to facilitators, necessitating new skills and support structures. These findings collectively provide a nuanced understanding of digital learning integration in the Israeli higher education context, emphasizing the need for culturally sensitive approaches to technological innovation in education.

While our findings align with some existing literature on digital learning integration, they also reveal unique aspects specific to the Israeli higher education context. Unlike studies in Western contexts that often emphasize technological barriers [14], our research highlights cultural and institutional factors as primary challenges. For instance, the tension between traditional academic norms and the flexibility required for effective digital learning emerged as a significant theme. This finding contributes to the growing body of knowledge on how cultural contexts shape the adoption and implementation of educational technologies.

Our study reveals unique challenges in the Israeli context, particularly the tension between traditional ‘hevruta’ learning methods and digital platforms. This finding extends the current understanding of cultural factors in digital learning integration, which has largely focused on Western contexts [14]. The identification of this cultural-pedagogical tension contributes new knowledge to the field of digital learning in higher education, highlighting the need for culturally sensitive approaches to digital integration.

This study makes several significant theoretical contributions to the field of digital learning in higher education. First, it extends the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by demonstrating the crucial role of cultural factors in shaping technology adoption. Our findings suggest that in the Israeli context, the compatibility of digital tools with traditional pedagogical practices like ‘hevruta’ learning is a key determinant of acceptance, beyond the model’s original constructs of perceived usefulness and ease of use. This implies that TAM may need to be adapted to include cultural compatibility as a key factor in educational settings.

Second, our study extends the TPACK framework by highlighting the need for what we term ‘Cultural Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge’ (CTPACK). This extension emphasizes the importance of understanding and integrating cultural teaching practices when implementing digital learning. The tension between ‘hevruta’ learning and digital platforms illustrates that technological and pedagogical knowledge alone is insufficient; lecturers also need to develop the skills to adapt cultural practices to digital environments.

Lastly, our findings support and extend Siemens’ theory of connectivism by demonstrating how digital tools can facilitate networked learning experiences in a culturally specific context. The diverse instructional approaches reported by our participants, such as online collaborative projects, show how connectivist principles can be applied in ways that respect and enhance traditional learning methods.

Our findings reveal unique aspects of digital learning integration in the Israeli higher education context. Unlike many Western studies that focus primarily on technological barriers, our research uncovered significant cultural factors influencing digital learning adoption. The tension between the traditional ‘hevruta’ learning style and digital platforms presents a challenge specific to Israeli academia. This finding contributes novel insights to the growing body of literature on cultural contexts in educational technology adoption.

To fully understand the implications of our findings, it is crucial to examine lecturers’ perceptions of digital learning in detail.

The following discussion synthesizes our key findings, explores their theoretical implications, and considers their practical significance for digital learning integration in higher education. We examine how our results both align with and extend the existing literature, while also highlighting the unique contributions of this study to the field of digital learning in culturally diverse contexts.

4.1. Lecturers’ Perceptions of Digital Learning

This study explored lecturers’ perceptions of digital learning integration at a college in Israel, assessing its congruence with the vision of the Council of Higher Education. It uncovered a complex view of digital learning, delineating its potential and challenges:

4.1.1. Enhancement of Traditional Teaching

Lecturers affirmed that digital learning could profoundly enhance traditional teaching methods. The integration of technological tools not only supports but also diversifies teaching methodologies, as noted by [7,36]. These tools enable a more dynamic interaction with the curriculum, improving the accessibility and engagement with learning materials, thereby reflecting [9] observations on leveraging technology for enhanced learning efficacy.

4.1.2. Pedagogical Goals and Misconceptions

The findings highlighted the instrumental role of digital tools in achieving pedagogical outcomes and the need for clarity regarding their role. Misconceptions that treat digital tools as the goal, rather than a means, can impede their effective integration into teaching practices. This corresponds with the emphasis in previous research [11] on the necessity of defining clear educational goals in the digital era.

4.1.3. Varied Motivations for Adoption

The study also illuminated the diverse motivations behind the adoption of digital learning, ranging from institutional mandates to intrinsic motivation among lecturers. This diversity aligns with the existing literature that acknowledges the complexity of technology adoption in educational settings [10,37].

While lecturers’ perceptions provide valuable insights, their actual experiences with digital learning offer a more nuanced understanding of its impact.

4.2. Experiences with Digital Learning

Lecturers’ experiences were profoundly shaped by their initial motivations and the specific contexts of their digital teaching practices.

4.2.1. Positive and Challenging Experiences

While some lecturers noted positive shifts in their teaching roles and satisfaction from utilizing digital tools, others encountered challenges such as difficulty in relinquishing control over learning processes and adapting to a more facilitative role. This reflects the broader discourse on the need for educators to modify their instructional approaches to effectively harness the benefits of digital technologies [23,24].

4.2.2. Insights and Structural Adjustments

Lecturers advocated that digital courses should be designed for longevity, not merely as temporary solutions. This approach addresses sustainability and resource investment concerns typical of digital education implementations. Furthermore, the necessity for careful planning and structured institutional support was identified as crucial for successful digital integration.

These experiences with digital learning have led to a significant shift in the role of lecturers, a transformation that warrants closer examination.

4.3. The Evolving Role of the Lecturer

A key discovery was the transformative shift in the lecturer’s role within digital learning environments.

4.3.1. From Knowledge Holder to Facilitator

The transition from being the primary source of knowledge to acting as a guide, mediator, and supporter marks a fundamental change in the academic identity and role of lecturers. This shift necessitates a reevaluation of lecturer training and support systems to ensure they are equipped with the necessary skills and competencies for these new roles.

4.3.2. Need for Comprehensive Support

Successful implementation of digital learning requires more than just technological tools; it necessitates comprehensive institutional support, including professional development, technical assistance, and recognition of lecturers’ efforts and challenges.

This study highlights digital learning’s transformative potential while cautioning against underestimating integration challenges. Institutions can better prepare educators for 21st-century demands by fostering continuous learning and adaptation.

The evolving role of lecturers in the digital learning environment underscores the transformative potential of this educational approach, while also highlighting the challenges that must be addressed.

The study delves into lecturers’ perceptions of digital learning at an Israeli college, revealing a nuanced perspective that balances the potential enhancements against inherent challenges. Key findings underscore the profound impact of digital tools in augmenting traditional teaching methods and fostering more dynamic curriculum interactions, highlighting the necessity for clarity in their pedagogical roles to avoid misinterpretations that hinder integration. The research also illuminates varied motivations behind adopting digital learning, ranging from institutional mandates to intrinsic lecturer interest. Moreover, the experiences of lecturers with digital learning vary significantly; while some appreciate the innovative opportunities it presents, others struggle with the shift from traditional instructional roles to more facilitative engagements. A significant insight from this study is the evolving role of lecturers in digital environments—from knowledge holders to facilitators—which demands substantial shifts in training and support structures to equip them with necessary new competencies. Overall, the study emphasizes that successful digital learning implementation requires comprehensive institutional support, addressing both technological needs and the professional development of lecturers to adapt to these transformative educational paradigms effectively.

4.4. Unique Contributions to the Field

This study makes several unique contributions to the field of digital learning in higher education. Firstly, it provides insights into the cultural-specific challenges of digital learning integration in the Israeli context, particularly highlighting the tension between traditional ‘hevruta’ learning methods and digital platforms. This finding extends our understanding of how cultural factors influence the adoption of educational technologies beyond the typically studied Western contexts. Secondly, our research reveals a nuanced dichotomy in lecturers’ attitudes towards digital learning, ranging from enthusiastic adoption to concerns about its impact on academic rigor. This spectrum of attitudes within a single institution provides a more complex picture of faculty perceptions than previously documented. Lastly, our study illuminates the evolving role of lecturers in the digital age, emphasizing the shift from knowledge holders to facilitators. This transformation has significant implications for professional development and institutional support structures in higher education.

4.5. Theoretical Implications

Furthermore, our study contributes to the development of a more nuanced understanding of technology acceptance in educational settings. We propose an extension to the TAM, which we term the Cultural-Technological Acceptance Model (CTAM). This model incorporates cultural compatibility as a key factor influencing perceived usefulness and ease of use. In the context of Israeli higher education, the compatibility of digital learning tools with traditional ‘hevruta’ learning practices significantly influenced lecturers’ acceptance and use of these tools. This finding suggests that technology acceptance models need to be adapted to account for specific cultural and educational traditions in different contexts. The CTAM provides a more comprehensive framework for understanding and predicting the adoption of educational technologies in culturally diverse settings.

Our findings challenge the universality of existing technology acceptance models by highlighting the crucial role of cultural factors. For instance, while TAM emphasizes perceived usefulness and ease of use, our study reveals that in the Israeli context, the compatibility of digital tools with traditional ‘hevruta’ learning practices significantly influences lecturers’ acceptance and use of these tools. This suggests that technology acceptance models may need to be adapted to account for specific cultural and educational traditions in different contexts.

Regarding TPACK, our study suggests that in the context of digital learning integration, lecturers need to develop not just technological and pedagogical knowledge but also cultural knowledge. As Lecturer D1 noted, “It’s not enough to know how to use the technology; we need to understand how to adapt our cultural teaching practices to the digital environment”.

Our findings reveal notable tension between institutional mandates for digital learning integration and individual lecturer initiatives. This dichotomy aligns closely with [38] the dual framework of digital strategies in higher education. Previous research [38] identifies two distinct approaches: a top-down digital transformation strategy driven by external requirements and a bottom-up digital innovation strategy emerging from internal needs. In our study, the institutional mandates for digital learning integration parallel this [38] top-down transformation strategy, while the diverse, often innovative approaches adopted by individual lecturers reflect the bottom-up innovation strategy. This alignment not only validates this previous author’s [38] framework in the Israeli higher education context but also provides empirical evidence of how these dual strategies manifest in practice. Furthermore, our findings extend [38] this work by illuminating the specific challenges and opportunities that arise when these two strategic approaches intersect in the context of digital learning integration.

The transition of lecturers from knowledge holders to facilitators suggests a need for developing new forms of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) specific to online and blended learning contexts. Our study extends this model by highlighting the role of cultural factors and institutional context in shaping these perceptions. The concept of ‘technological pedagogical content knowledge’ (TPACK) introduced by [34] is also relevant to our findings. The transition of lecturers from knowledge holders to facilitators in digital learning environments suggests a need for developing new forms of TPACK specific to online and blended learning contexts.

Building on these established frameworks, we propose a new theoretical model: the Cultural–Technological Integration Framework (CTIF). This model synthesizes elements from TAM, TPACK, and connectivism while incorporating the crucial dimension of cultural context. The CTIF, as presented in Figure 1, posits that successful digital learning integration in higher education is a function of four interrelated factors: technological acceptance, pedagogical content knowledge, networked learning capacity, and cultural compatibility. This framework provides a more comprehensive lens for understanding and predicting the success of digital learning initiatives in diverse cultural contexts.

To further illustrate the CTIF model, we propose the visual representation shown in Figure 1.

In this model, the four factors interact dynamically:

• Technological Acceptance: Influenced by perceived usefulness and ease of use, but also by cultural compatibility.
• Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Encompasses understanding of how to teach specific content effectively using appropriate pedagogical approaches.
• Networked Learning Capacity: Reflects the ability to leverage digital tools for collaborative and connectivist learning experiences.
• Cultural Compatibility: Acts as a mediating factor, influencing how the other three elements are perceived and implemented within a specific cultural context.

The CTIF model suggests that optimal digital learning integration occurs when all four factors are aligned and mutually reinforce each other. For instance, in the context of ‘hevruta’ learning, digital tools that enhance rather than replace the collaborative, dialogic nature of this practice would score high on cultural compatibility, potentially increasing technological acceptance and enabling new forms of networked learning that align with traditional pedagogical values.

However, it is important to acknowledge the potential limitations of the CTIF model. First, the relative weight of each factor may vary depending on the specific cultural and institutional context, necessitating further research to calibrate the model for different settings. Second, the model assumes a degree of technological infrastructure and literacy that may not be universally available. Finally, the dynamic nature of digital innovation means that the model will require ongoing refinement to remain relevant as new technologies emerge.

Future research could focus on operationalizing and empirically testing the CTIF model across diverse cultural and institutional contexts. This could involve developing measurement scales for each factor and conducting quantitative studies to assess their predictive power for successful digital learning integration. Additionally, longitudinal studies could help understand how the interplay between these factors evolves over time as digital learning becomes more deeply embedded in higher education practices”.

In practice, educational institutions can apply the CTIF model to guide their digital learning integration strategies. For instance, when introducing new digital tools, institutions should first assess their cultural compatibility with existing teaching practices. They can then design professional development programs that address not only technological skills but also cultural adaptation. The model also suggests that networked learning initiatives should be designed to align with and enhance culturally valued pedagogical approaches, such as ‘hevruta’ learning in the Israeli context.

To illustrate, in the case of ‘hevruta’ learning, the CTIF would predict that digital tools that enhance rather than replace the collaborative, dialogic nature of this practice would be more readily accepted and effectively implemented. This model not only explains our findings but also provides a theoretical basis for future research and practical application in various cultural contexts.

Furthermore, our findings support and extend [35] the theory of connectivism, which emphasizes the role of networks and connections in learning. The diverse instructional approaches reported by our participants, such as flipped classrooms and collaborative online projects, align with connectivist principles and demonstrate how digital tools can facilitate networked learning in higher education.

Recent studies continue to affirm the relevance of these theoretical frameworks in the rapidly evolving landscape of digital learning. Previous research [17] has explored how TPACK relates to adaptive teaching in technology-enhanced environments, finding that higher levels of TPACK correlate with more effective adaptive teaching strategies. This aligns with our observations of lecturers developing new forms of technological pedagogical content knowledge specific to digital learning contexts. Similarly, other authors [39] have examined the application of connectivism in the age of AI, further highlighting the ongoing importance of this theory in understanding digital learning integration. Their systematic review underscores the potential of connectivist approaches in leveraging AI and other advanced technologies to create more networked and adaptive learning environments, resonating with our findings on the diverse instructional approaches adopted by lecturers.

5. Conclusions and Practical Implications

This study’s empirical findings yield substantial practical and theoretical implications for tertiary educational institutions and policy-forming bodies in Israel, with potential extrapolation to other contexts navigating the complexities of digital learning integration. Our research highlights three key contributions: First, we identify the significant tension between traditional ‘hevruta’ learning and digital platforms, underscoring the need for culturally sensitive digital learning strategies. Second, we propose the Cultural–Technological Acceptance Model (CTAM), extending existing theoretical frameworks by incorporating cultural compatibility as a crucial factor in technology acceptance. Third, we provide evidence for the evolving role of lecturers from knowledge holders to facilitators in digital learning environments. These findings suggest that institutions should consider developing hybrid models that preserve the essence of collaborative, discussion-based learning while leveraging the benefits of digital tools.

Secondly, the diverse attitudes of lecturers towards digital learning underscore the importance of tailored professional development programs. These programs should not only focus on technical skills but also address pedagogical concerns and showcase the potential of digital tools to enhance, rather than replace, effective teaching practices.

Thirdly, the evolving role of lecturers from knowledge holders to facilitators calls for a reconsideration of institutional support structures. This includes revising workload models, evaluation criteria, and reward systems to recognize the additional time and effort required for effective digital learning implementation.

Lastly, policymakers should consider these findings when developing national strategies for digital learning in higher education. Policies should be flexible enough to accommodate the unique cultural and institutional contexts of different academic settings while providing a framework for consistent quality and support across the sector.

Based on our findings, we propose the following specific, actionable recommendations:

• Develop a ‘Digital Hevruta’ Toolkit: Create a comprehensive set of digital tools and guidelines specifically designed to support ‘hevruta’ learning in online environments. This toolkit should include features like synchronized digital text annotation, split-screen video conferencing for face-to-face discussions, and AI-powered discussion prompts to facilitate deeper analysis.
• While this toolkit has the potential to significantly enhance digital ‘hevruta’ learning, its implementation may face challenges. These could include resistance from traditionalists who view digital tools as incompatible with ‘hevruta’ practices, technical difficulties in developing seamlessly integrated tools, and the need for extensive training to ensure effective use. Additionally, concerns about data privacy and the ethical implications of AI-powered prompts will need to be carefully addressed.
• Establish a ‘Cultural Digital Integration’ Certificate Program: Develop a professional certification program for lecturers that focuses on integrating digital tools with culturally specific teaching practices. This program should include modules on adapting ‘hevruta’ learning to digital platforms, using technology to enhance rather than replace traditional practices, and creating culturally sensitive blended learning experiences.
• Implement a ‘Digital Culture Compatibility’ Assessment Framework: Develop a standardized framework for assessing the cultural compatibility of digital learning tools and platforms. This framework should be used by institutions when selecting or developing educational technologies to ensure they align with and support traditional teaching practices.
• Create ‘Digital Hevruta’ Spaces on Campus: Design physical spaces on campus equipped with technology that supports both traditional and digital ‘hevruta’ learning. These spaces could include interactive whiteboards, video conferencing facilities, and digital collaboration tools, allowing for a seamless transition between physical and digital collaborative learning.
• Establish a National ‘Digital Pedagogy and Cultural Preservation’ Task Force: Form a dedicated group of educators, technologists, and cultural experts to continuously assess and guide the integration of digital learning in ways that respect and enhance traditional educational practices across various cultural contexts in Israel.

The challenges and opportunities identified in our study echo those found in broader research on digital education integration. Previous authors [16] have highlighted improved teaching and learning, increased return on investment, and reduced inequality as potential benefits of digital education. However, they also note challenges such as digital literacy gaps, the need for self-discipline among students, and technological obstacles. Our findings in the Israeli context, particularly regarding the tension with traditional ‘hevruta’ learning, add a cultural dimension to these considerations.

For policymakers and educational leaders, our findings underscore the importance of culturally sensitive approaches to digital learning integration. Strategies should be developed that balance the benefits of digital tools with the preservation of valued traditional practices like ‘hevruta’ learning. This might involve creating hybrid models that incorporate digital technologies into collaborative, discussion-based learning environments. Furthermore, professional development programs for lecturers should not only focus on technical skills but also on ways to adapt cultural teaching practices to digital environments. Lastly, institutional policies should be flexible enough to accommodate diverse teaching approaches while ensuring consistent quality across digital learning implementations.

6. Limitations and Further Studies

This study’s conclusions are constrained by its limited sample size and the singular institutional focus, which may not capture the varied experiences and outcomes of digital learning across different educational settings. While this study provides valuable insights from lecturers’ perspectives, we acknowledge that focusing solely on teachers presents a limitation. The decision to prioritize teachers’ viewpoints was based on their pivotal role in implementing digital learning strategies. However, we recognize that a comprehensive understanding of digital learning integration would benefit from including the perspectives of students, administrative staff, and other stakeholders.

While this study focuses on the Israeli context, its findings and the proposed CTIF model may have transferability to other cultural contexts with strong traditional learning practices, such as Confucian heritage cultures in East Asia or Indigenous learning traditions in various parts of the world.

We acknowledge that our participant selection criteria, which included active involvement with digital learning, may introduce some bias towards more technologically inclined lecturers. To mitigate this, we intentionally sought participants with varying levels of digital proficiency and attitudes toward technology integration.

Subsequent scholarly inquiries should accord primacy to the incorporation of student and administrative personnel perspectives, thereby facilitating a more holistic comprehension of digital learning integration processes. A multi-stakeholder approach, including surveys with students and interviews with administrative staff, could offer valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of digital learning from different angles. This would address the limitation of our teacher-centric focus and provide a more holistic understanding of the digital learning ecosystem in higher education.

Moreover, comparative studies across different types of higher education institutions, both within Israel and internationally, are strongly recommended. These studies could explore how varying institutional cultures, resources, and policies impact digital learning integration. Cross-cultural comparisons could provide valuable insights into the interplay between cultural factors and digital learning adoption, building on our findings about the unique challenges in the Israeli context. These comparative studies would significantly enhance the generalizability of findings and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of digital learning integration across diverse educational settings.

This study opens up several avenues for future research in less explored areas of digital learning integration. One such area is the long-term impact of rapid digital adoption on academic identity and the evolving nature of scholarship in a digital age. Another under-researched aspect is the intersection of digital learning with issues of equity and accessibility in higher education, particularly in diverse socio-economic contexts like Israel. Future studies could also explore the development of new pedagogical models that seamlessly blend digital and traditional approaches, moving beyond the current dichotomy often seen in the literature.

A key limitation of this study is its focus on a single stakeholder group—lecturers—within one institution. While this approach allowed for an in-depth exploration of faculty perspectives, it does not capture the full complexity of the digital learning ecosystem in higher education. Future research should prioritize a multi-stakeholder approach, incorporating the views of students, administrative staff, and institutional leaders. This could involve large-scale surveys of students, focus group discussions with diverse student cohorts, and interviews with IT support staff, instructional designers, and academic administrators. Such a comprehensive approach would provide a more holistic understanding of the challenges and opportunities in digital learning integration.

Furthermore, investigating the long-term effects of digital learning practices and their differential impacts across various academic disciplines will provide deeper insights into the evolving landscape of digital education. These studies would help to understand the scalability and applicability of the findings across diverse educational settings.

Future research should focus on further developing and validating the CTIF model. This could include quantitative studies to operationalize the model’s components and test their relationships empirically across various cultural contexts. Longitudinal studies could also be valuable in tracking how the interplay between cultural factors and digital learning integration evolves over time. Additionally, comparative studies applying the CTIF model in different cultural settings would help refine its applicability and generalizability.