This study presents the Digital Transformation Framework for General Psychology Education (DTF-GPE), an evidence-based model for modernizing introductory psychology courses in response to technological advancement and post-pandemic educational shifts. Through mixed-methods research incorporating systematic literature review (n=347 articles), stakeholder consultation (n=1,129 participants), and pilot implementation across 12 courses at 8 institutions, we developed a framework integrating five pillars: Modernized Content Architecture, Integrated Technology Ecosystem, Active Learning Pedagogy, Authentic Assessment Strategies, and Continuous Improvement Infrastructure. Results demonstrate significant improvements in digitally transformed courses: enhanced student learning outcomes (d=0.48), particularly in application-based knowledge (d=0.62) and critical thinking skills (4.3-point improvement); increased engagement (2.7× content interactions, 3.4× peer interactions); and 38% better long-term knowledge retention compared to traditional formats. The framework addresses critical gaps including overrepresentation of WEIRD populations, passive learning methods, and disconnect from contemporary psychological science. Implementation success depends on sustained professional development (d=0.67 for learning communities vs. d=0.12 for workshops), phased implementation (78% success rate over 18-24 months vs. 34% for rapid transformation), and comprehensive student support (reducing dropout from 18% to 7%). Evidence-based resource allocation recommendations balance technology infrastructure (25-30%), professional development (20-25%), content development (15-20%), student support (15-20%), and assessment/maintenance (20-30%). While reducing some achievement gaps, persistent inequalities necessitate equity-focused strategies. The framework emphasizes that transformation extends beyond technology adoption to encompass pedagogical philosophy, institutional culture, and support structures, providing actionable guidance for creating engaging, inclusive, and effective psychology education for the 21st century.

Zhiwei Liu. Digital Transformation Framework for General Psychology Education: A Comprehensive Analysis and Implementation Strategy. Frontiers in Educational Research (2026), Vol. 9, Issue 4: 104-112. https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2026.090416.

[1] Gurung, R. A. R., & Neufeld, G. (2022). Transforming introductory psychology: Expert advice on best practices. American Psychological Association.

[2] Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

[3] Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135-142.

[4] Littlefield, M., Rubinstein, K., DeLeo, A., Meyers, M., & Freeman, J. (2021). Teaching introductory psychology during COVID-19: What we learned and what we can do moving forward. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. Advance online publication.

[5] Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.

[6] Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.

[7] Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of 'useful' digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1567-1579.

[8] Formosa, N. J., Morrison, B. W., Hill, G., & Stone, D. (2018). Testing the efficacy of a virtual reality-based simulation in enhancing users' knowledge, attitudes, and empathy relating to psychosis. Australian Journal of Psychology, 70(1), 57-65.

[9] Stoet, G. (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24-31.

[10] Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., Massonnié, J., Flitton, A., Kirkham, N., & Evershed, J. K. (2020). Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods, 52(1), 388-407.

[11] Chew, S. L., & Cerbin, W. J. (2021). The cognitive challenges of effective teaching. The Journal of Economic Education, 52(1), 17-40.

[12] Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J., & Ginges, J. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11401-11405.

[13] Bernstein, D. A. (2018). Does active learning work? A good question, but not the right one. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 290-307.

[14] Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 8-38). Teachers College Press.

[15] Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.

[16] Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

[17] CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org