Orchestrating value co-creation in digital education using the Tise-Valorize framework
From knowing to becoming
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22164175 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Meliana Christianti Johan (0009-0000-7217-9415, Bandung Institute of Technology), Armein Z R Langi (0000-0001-9516-1461, Bandung Institute of Technology), I Gusti Bagus Baskara Nugraha (0000-0003-1197-8947, Bandung Institute of Technology), Radiant Victor Imbar (0000-0001-6752-0746, Maranatha Christian University), Parlindungan Sinaga (0000-0003-0333-6522, Indonesia University of Education) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 11 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-29 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Frontiers in Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2504-284X • E-ISSN: 2504-284X |
| Publisher | Frontiers Media SA (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3389/feduc.2026.1827542 |
| OpenAlex | W7159641369 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 29 |
Introduction AI can automate technical activities, but it cannot teach skills that only people have. This study proposes the TISE-VALORIZE framework and presents a preliminary empirical examination of its association with student performance outcomes in digital engineering education. Methods A posttest-only quasi-experimental study with non-equivalent cross-cohort groups involved 138 undergraduate engineering students: one intervention group implementing TISE-VALORIZE ( n = 53) and two control groups receiving conventional instruction ( n = 42; n = 43). Student performance was evaluated through Structured Academic Activities assessed using a Bloom's Taxonomy-aligned rubric. Results: The intervention group showed higher mean scores (M = 94.98, SD = 7.21) and lower score variance (Var = 52.01) than Control 1 (M = 88.70, SD = 18.33, Var = 335.78) and Control 2 (M = 86.54, SD = 17.05, Var = 290.98). A one-way ANOVA indicated a significant group difference, F(2, 135) = 4.41, p = .014, η 2 = .061, and Tukey post-hoc analysis showed a significant difference between the intervention group and Control 2, while the difference between the intervention group and Control 1 did not reach significance. Discussion These preliminary results suggest that the framework may support more consistent learning outcomes. However, direct measures of cognitive load, motivation, and related psychological processes were not included in the present study. These findings provide preliminary support for the framework's potential to improve performance consistency, while larger-scale studies with direct measures of cognitive and motivational processes are needed
Academic achievement · Cognition · Empirical research · Engineering education · Higher education · Higher Education Practises and Engagement · Persona Design and Applications · Service and Product Innovation
Critical service logic
Co-creation experiences
Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design
Higher Education 4.0
Evaluating the impact of AI on the critical thinking skills among the higher education students by combining the TAM model and critical thinking theory
Mission orientation, transfer competence, and the Wheel of Competencies
The effect of narrative-based E-learning systems on novice users’ cognitive load while learning software applications
The magical number seven, plus or minus two
| Highly cited | No |
|---|