The present study aims to evaluate and compare the quality of management education programmes provided by private- and public-funded technology-enabled learning (TEL) platforms in India. The exploratory-descriptive research approach with a cross-sectional design was adopted to observe 1,318 learners from management education programmes operated by TEL platforms. The research instrument statements were based on the parameters of the COBTEL model. Descriptive analysis of mean ratings and inferential statistics using independent-samples t-test were conducted. The results indicated that the management education programmes of private-funded TEL platforms were perceived to be superior to those of public-funded TEL platforms in 42 out of 56 quality indicators. This study is one of the first to provide evaluation metrics of the educational programme quality of Indian TEL platforms, and the conclusion is that private-funded TEL platforms offer a better mix of theory and practice in their management education programmes than public-funded TEL platforms.
AgnihotriM. A., & PanditA. (2021). Overview and future scope of SWAYAM in the world of MOOCS: A comparative study with reference to major international MOOCS. Computational Intelligence in Digital Pedagogy, 197, 169–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8744-3_9
2.
Al-FraihatD., JoyM., & SinclairJ. (2020). Evaluating e-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67–86.
3.
AliB. M. (2019). A critical reflection on digital initiation by GOI (Government of India) for HE (higher education).
4.
AminI., YousafA., WaliaS., & BashirM. (2022). What shapes e-learning effectiveness among tourism education students? An empirical assessment during COVID19. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 30, 100337.
5.
AnandR. (2021). Challenges in designing and development of massive open online courses (MOOCS) as perceived by instructors across India. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology39(11), 42–47. 2021https://doi.org/10.9734/AJAEES/2021/v39i1130724
6.
AndersonT. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. Handbook of Distance Education, 129–144.
7.
AndersonT., & WhitelockD. (2004). The educational semantic web: Visioning and practicing the future of education. Journal of interactive Media in Education, 2, 17–46.
8.
AslamS., & SonkarS. K. (2021). A comparative study of online courseware in UK, USA and India: A systematic literature review. Library Herald, 59(3), 179–206.
9.
Assocham. (2017). Only 20% students from business schools land job offers: ASSOCHAM. ASSOCHAMIndia. https://www.qimpro.org/downloads/Assocham.pdf
10.
BartlettF. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
11.
Blincinvest. (2022). India EdTech sector 2021H1—BLinC insights. https://blincinvest.com/edtech
12.
BordoloiR., DasP., & DasK. (2021). Perception towards online/blended learning at the time of Covid-19 pandemic: An academic analytics in the Indian context. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 16(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-09-2020-0079
13.
BowerM. (2019). Technology-mediated learning theory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1035–1048.
14.
BratianuC., HadadS., & BejinaruR. (2020). Paradigm shift in business education: A competence-based approach. Sustainability, 12(4), 1348.
15.
BroughamD., & HaarJ. (2020). Technological disruption and employment: The influence on job insecurity and turnover intentions: A multi-country study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120276.
16.
BrunerJ. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
17.
BurchP., & MiglaniN. (2018). Technocentrism and social fields in the Indian EdTech movement: Formation, reproduction and resistance. Journal of Education Policy, 33(5), 590–616.
18.
CabralC., & DharR. L. (2019). Skill development research in India: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26 (7), 2242–2266. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2018-0211
19.
Career 360. (2021). Which course is right for you?Career 360. https://cache.careers360.mobi/media/uploads/froala_editor/files/Online%20courses%20with%20certificates.pdf
20.
CheethamG., & ChiversG. (1998). The reflective (and competent) practitioner: A model of professional competence which seeks to harmonise the reflective practitioner and competence-based approaches. Journal of European Industrial Training, 22(7), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599810230678
21.
CheungE., ChanA. P., LamP. T., ChanD. W., & KeY. (2012). A comparative study of critical success factors for public private partnerships (PPP) between Mainland China and the Hong Kong special administrative region. Facilities, 30(13/14), 647–666.
22.
ChopraG., MadanP., JaisinghP., & BhaskarP. (2019). Effectiveness of e-learning portal from students’ perspective: A structural equation model (SEM) approach. Interactive Technology and Smart Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-05-2018-0027
23.
ChoudhuryS., & PattnaikS. (2020). Emerging themes in e-learning: A review from the stakeholders’ perspective. Computers & Education, 144, 103657.
24.
ChuriP., MistryK., AsadM. M., DhimanG., SoniM., & KoseU. (2021). Online learning in COVID-19 pandemic: An empirical study of Indian and Turkish higher education institutions. World Journal of Engineering. [ISSN 1708-5284][https://doi.org/10.1108/WJE-12-2020-0631]
25.
CidralW. A., OliveiraT., Di FeliceM., & AparicioM. (2018). E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers and Education, 122, 273–290.
26.
Class Central. (2022, July1). [2022] SWAYAM + NPTEL courses full list. https://www.classcentral.com/report/swayam-moocs-course-list/
27.
Common Wealth of Learning. (2020a). Open and distance learning–Key terms & definitions. Commonwealth of LearningMay 2020. http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/3558
28.
Commonwealth of Learning. (2020b). Open and distance learning–Key terms & definitions. Commonwealth of Learning CC BY SA Revised and Updated Version.
29.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
30.
DeLoneW. H., & McLeanE. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management 184 Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
31.
DhouchakP., & KumarN. (2022). A proposed model for evaluating quality of technology-enabled learning in management education programmes. Global Business Review. [Article in Press]https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509221107965
32.
DickW., & CareyL. (1990). The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). Harper Collins New York.
33.
DuggalS. (2021, January30). EdTech: An idea whose time has come. Techobserver. https://techobserver.in/2021/01/29/edtech-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/
34.
ElfakiN. K., AbdulraheemI., & AbdulrahimR. (2019). Impact of e-learning vs traditional learning on student’s performance and attitude. International Journal of Medical Research and Health Sciences, 8(10), 76–82.
35.
ElliottA. C., & WoodwardW. A. (2007). Statistical analysis quick reference guidebook: With SPSS examples. SAGE.
36.
EtikanI., MusaS. A., & AlkassimR. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.
37.
FaheemM. (2020, April25). Why dropout rates are high for online courses and what is the solution. Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/education/why-drop-out-rates-are-high-for-online-courses-and-what-is-thesolution-6376045/
38.
FieldA. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. SAGE.
39.
GibbsG. (2010). Dimensions of quality. Higher Education Academy.
40.
GulatiS., SharmaR., & ChakravartyR. (2021). Understanding user perceptive and satisfaction level towards MOOCs: A comparative analysis of SWAYAM and Coursera. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 6551. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/6551
41.
HairJ. F., PageM., & BrunsveldN. (2019). Essentials of business research methods. Routledge.
42.
HarveyL.2004–2022. Analytic quality glossary. Quality Research International. http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/
43.
HashimY. A. (2010). Determining sufficiency of sample size in management survey research activities. International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1), 119–130.
44.
HauminL., & MadhusudhanM. (2019). An Indian based MOOC: An overview. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 2382, 1–23.
45.
IBEF (September, 2021). India brand equity foundation, Indian education sector in India industry report. https://www.ibef.org/download/Education-and-Training-September-2021.pdf
46.
Inc42. (2022, January7). With 3 new unicorns, India’s Edtech startups raised $4.7 Bn in 2021. Inc42 Media. https://inc42.com/features/with-3-new-unicorns-indias-edtech-startups-raised-4-7-bn-in-2021/
47.
India Today. (2021, March10). Budget 2021: Gearing up for an Atmanirbhar education system. https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/featurephilia/story/budget-2021-gearing-up-for-an-atmanirbhar-education-system-1777725-2021-03-10
48.
JacobM. E., Manoj NarayananK. S., & CherianM. E. (2022). Factors influencing adoption intent of SWAYAM courses by graduate and postgraduate students. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(5), 4098–4109.
49.
JohnsonL., BeckerS. A., CumminsM., EstradaV., FreemanA., & HallC. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition (pp. 1–50). The New Media Consortium.
50.
JuniorVC. (2021, September5). Will Eruditus bring education to the world’s fingertips?https://ajuniorvc.com/eruditus-edtech-unicorn-byjus-unacademy-executive-higher-upgrad/
51.
KalidasanV. K., & GoyalT. (2021, December31). Ed-Tech companies won’t create a more egalitarian, educated India. The Wire. https://thewire.in/education/ed-tech-companies-wont-create-a-moreegalitarian-educated-india
52.
KanjilalU., & KaulP. (2016). The journey of SWAYAM: India MOOCs initiative. Commonwealth of Learning. http://hdl.handle.net/11599/2592
53.
KannanU. (2022, July31). Massive layoffs, business restructuring: Is India’s Edtech bubble bursting?The New Indian Express. https://www.newindianexpress.com/business/2022/jul/31/massive-layoffs-business-restructuring-is-indias-edtech-bubble-bursting-2482437.html
54.
KansalA. K., GautamJ., ChintalapudiN., JainS., & BattineniG. (2021). Google trend analysis and paradigm shift of online education platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Infectious Disease Reports, 13(2), 418–428.
55.
KantP., & MehraA. (2022). A critical evaluation of the national programme on technology-enhanced learning (NPTEL): The flagship Indian massive open online courses (MOOCs) programme. InThe European conference on education 2022 official conference proceedings ISSN: 2188-1162 (10th ed.). The International Academic Forum (IAFOR). https://papers.iafor.org/wp-content/uploads/conference-proceedings/ECE/ECE2022_proceedings.pdf
56.
KapasiaN., PaulP., RoyA., SahaJ., ZaveriA., MallickR., BarmanB., DasP., & ChouhanP. (2020). Impact of lockdown on learning status of undergraduate and postgraduate students during COVID-19 pandemic in West Bengal, India. Children and Youth Services Review, 116, 105194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105194
57.
KhanM. A., NabiM. K., KhojahM., & TahirM. (2020). Students’ perception towards e-learning during COVID-19 pandemic in India: An empirical study. Sustainability, 13(1), 57.
58.
KimH. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using Skewness and Kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, 38(1), 52–54.
59.
KiranP., KishoreS. K., BanerjeeJ., & VasudevanM. (2020). An empirical observation of factors leading to subscription of EdTech services. Materials Today: Proceedings.
60.
KrejcieR. V., & MorganD. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.
61.
KumarN. A. (2020). NMEICT approved major projects and it’s impacts in Indian education system. Library of Progress-Library Science, Information Technology and Computer, 40(2).
62.
KumarP., & KumarN. (2020). A study of learner’s satisfaction from MOOCs through a mediation model. Procedia Computer Science, 173, 354–363.
63.
KunduA., & BejT. (2020). Perceptions of MOOCs among Indian state university students and teachers. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(5), 1095–1115. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-08-2019-0224
64.
LomasL. (2002). Does the development of mass education necessarily mean the end of quality?Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), 71–79.
65.
MacDonaldC. J., StodelE. J., FarresL. G., BreithauptK., & GabrielM. A. (2001). The demand-driven learning model: A framework for web-based learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 9–30.
66.
MillerG. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81.
67.
Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. (2021, June13). One of the youngest populations in the world: India’s most valuable asset. IndBiz | Economic Diplomacy Division. https://indbiz.gov.in/one-of-the-youngest-populations-in-the-world-indias-most-valuable-asset/
68.
MuthuprasadT., AiswaryaS., AdityaK. S., & JhaG. K. (2021). Students’ perception and preference for online education in India during COVID-19 pandemic. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 3(1), 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100101
69.
OzkanS., & KoselerR. (2009). Multidimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers and Education, 53(4), 1285–1296.
70.
PalD., & VanijjaV. (2020). Perceived usability evaluation of Microsoft teams as an online learning platform during COVID-19 using system usability scale and technology acceptance model in India. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105535.
71.
PatelA., & ParekhY. (2019). Measuring impact, contents and pedagogy of NPTEL e-content project. Adalya Journal, 8(10), 471–479. ISSN NO:1301–2746. http://adalyajournal.com/
72.
PavlidouI., DragicevicN., & TsuiE. (2021). A multidimensional hybrid learning environment for business education: A knowledge dynamics perspective. Sustainability, 13(7), 3889.
73.
PavlovI. P. (1897). The work of the digestive glands (W.H. Thompson, English translation, London, 1902). Griffin.
74.
PawlowskiJ. M. (2007). The quality adaptation model: Adaptation and adoption of the quality standard ISO/IEC 19796-1 for learning, education, and training. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 10(2), 3–16.
75.
PradhanC. D. K. (2020). Education reloaded: Dawn of the digital age. CMAS’ Industry Bulletin, 8.
76.
RajaM. A. S., & KallarakalT. K. (2020). “COVID-19 and students perception about MOOCs” a case of Indian higher educational institutions. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(3), 450–474. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-07-2020-0106
77.
RaoN. V. J., SahuD. M., & MohapatroD. (2021). Employability training gaps in industries: A post-covid scenario of India. In SruthiS. & GuptaR. K. (Eds.), Perspectives on business management, vol. 2(pp.25–40). Archers and Elevators.
78.
RavishankarK., JeyaprabhaB., Moideen BatchaH., & SagunthalaV. R. D. (2018). Intention and awareness on digital media and e-learning solutions among management students in education. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 120(6), 8101–8114.
79.
RobinsonO. C. (2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 25–41.
80.
SahooP. K., SahooN., & DeviU. (2019). A study of higher education students awareness of MOOC (SWAYAM) programme and usefulness of a teacher education course offered through SWAYAM. Commonwealth of Learning (COL).
81.
SarstedtM., HairJ. F.Jr, CheahJ. H., BeckerJ. M., & RingleC. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLSSEM. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 27(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003
82.
SiemensG. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. elearnspace.
83.
SinghG. (2022). Quality of MOOC for teachers’ professional development: Participants’perception. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 10(1).
84.
SinghN. (2019). SWAYAM-Indian MOOCs: An insider’s perspective. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 47–55.
85.
SridharanB. (2011). Evaluating the critical success factors for sustainable elearning ecosystems in tertiary education (Doctoral dissertation, RMIT University). https://researchrepository.rmit.edu.au/esploro/outputs/doctoral/Evaluatingthe-critical-success-factors-for-sustainable-E-learning-ecosystems-intertiary-education/9921863986801341
86.
Statista. (2022, July26). Countries with the largest digital populations in the world as of January 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/262966/number-of-internet-users-in-selected-countries/
87.
SubrahmanyamV. V., & SwathiK. (2016) Augmenting training and development for management students and professionals through MOOCs. In Conference:National conference on digitization: Envisioning technology and accelerating growth in business transformation (NCD’16)At: Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Institute of Management & Information Technology (SGTBIMIT), New Delhi
88.
TasoK., & ChakrabartyA. (2020). E-learning in higher education in India: Experiences and challenges—An exploratory study. In Intelligent computing and innovation on data science(pp. 715–723).
89.
UNESCO. (2008). Global initiative for quality assurance capacity (GIQAC): Governance terms. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000159198
90.
VygotskyL. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press and Wiley.
91.
WangS. K., HsuH. Y., ReevesT. C., & CosterD. C. (2014). Professional development to enhance teachers’ practices in using information and communication technologies (ICTs) as cognitive tools: Lessons learned from a design-based research study. Computers and Education, 79, 101–115.
92.
WatsonJ. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.
93.
WeeksK. W., CobenD., O’NeillD., JonesA., WeeksA., BrownM., & PontinD. (2019). Developing and integrating nursing competence through authentic technology-enhanced clinical simulation education: Pedagogies for reconceptualising the theory–practice gap. Nurse Education in Practice, 37, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2019.04.010
94.
Wheebox. (2019). India skills report2019: Say hello to the future of work. Wheebox.com. https://wheebox.com/assets/pdf/ISR_Report_2019.pdf
