Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing impact of technology based digital equalizer programme on improving student learning outcomes

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this research was to assess the impact of the Digital Equalizer program (DE Program) in terms of student learning outcomes of students in subjects like science, mathematics and geography after 8 months of implementing the DE program in 283 schools across 30 districts of Odisha, India. This study was a inter group and intra group comparison between 3 groups - Treatment I, Treatment II and Control Group. N = 1991 (Class VI = 985 and Class VII = 1006. A pretest and post-test design was followed. The findings revealed an improvement in the achievement scores in IT Literacy for class 6 and class 7 students between LAT I and LAT II. Learning achievement comparison also shows an improvement in case of Treatment I students. There has been an upward movement of students from grade E towards grade A in Treatment I schools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alemany, I. G., & Majós, T. M. (2000). Strategies to regulate content development and interactivity in the classroom. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(2), 157–171. Springer.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azemi, A. (1997). Developing an active learning environment with courseware approach. In Frontiers in Education Conference, 1997. 27th Annual Conference. Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change. Proceedings. (Vol. 3, pp. 1179–1184). IEEE.

  • Banks, J. (2001). Citizenship education and diversity implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzegar, S., Shojafar, M., & Keyvanpour, M. R. (2010). Improvement user interface in virtual learning environment. Digital Society (IJDS), 1(3), 221–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bate, F., Robertson, I., & Smart, L. (2003). Exploring educational design: A snapshot of eight case studies using e-learning in Australian VET.

  • Bouki, V., Economou, D., & Angelopoulou, A. (2011). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning and learning videos design: the redundancy principle. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on Design of communication (pp. 271–278). ACM.

  • Campbell, C., & Van der Wende M. (2000). International initiatives and trends in quality assurance for European higher education, ENQA occasional paper, http://www.enqa.eu/indirme/papers-and-reports/occasional-papers/initiatives.pdf.

  • Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In: E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 6.

  • Cotosman Dieter Penteliuc. (2006). The New multimedia technologies, used in open and distance learning. Annals Computer Science Series, 4(1), 195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, C. E. (2001). Learning for use: a framework for the design of technology supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., Schneider, D., & Synteta, P. (2002). Virtual learning environments. In Proceedings of the 3rd Hellenic Conference ‘Information & Communication Technologies in Education’ (pp. 3–18).

  • Dower, N. (2003). An Introduction to Global Citizenship. Oxford University Press, NY

  • Kiili, K. (2006). Towards a participatory multimedia learning model. Education and Information Technologies, 11(1), 21–32. Springer.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87–99. Springer.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohapatra, S. (2009). Business process automation. PHI Learning: New Delhi.

  • Mohapatra, S. (2014). Software project management. Cengage Learning: New Delhi.

  • Mohapatra, S. (2015a). Business school education and technology–a case study. Education and Information Technologies, 20(2), 335–346.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mohapatra, S. (2015b). Requirement management – controlling quality at the upstream in commercial software project management. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 10(3), 8203–8219.

  • Mohapatra, S., & Mohanty, B. (2001). Defect prevention through defect prediction: A case study at Infosys. In Proceedings ICSM '01 Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'01) (260–272). doi:10.1109/ICSM.2001.972739.

  • Mohapatra, S., & Acharya, J. (2011). Public Private Partnership – participatory interventions to improve primary education in OPEPA. Journal of Case Research, II(02), 148–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukti, N. (2001). Courseware development to motivate life-long reading habits. IEEE Multimedia, 8(4), 76–81. IEEE.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, A. (2005). The impact of e-learning. In E-Content (pp. 79–96). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

  • Nie, S., & Liu, Y. (2011). The design and application of computer aided instruction courseware. In IEEE 2011 International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering (ICIII), (Vol. 1, pp. 453–455).

  • Ormond, S. (2013). Supporting students in online open and distance learning. Wellingborogh: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paraskakis, I., & Hatziapostolou, T. (2008). Facilitating access to distance education: Creating pedagogically driven courseware using simple technologies. In IEEE 2008. ICALT’08. Eighth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 433–437).

  • Patti, M., & Pete, J. (2007). Online communication and adolescent well-being: testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1169–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roels, C., & Gourdain, A. (2009). Is it possible to conciliate “e-Learning”, “Learning by doing” and “Cross cultural” approaches when learning new technologies?. In Multimedia and E-Content Trends (pp. 147–165). Vieweg + Teubner. doi:10.1007/978-3-8348-9313-0_13.

  • Song, T. S., Choy, Y. C., & Lim, S. B. (2006). A multimedia contents development and implementation model based on computer graphics courseware. In Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment (pp. 301–310). Berlin: Springer.

  • Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sorden. (2005). International Relations. Political Studies Review, 2: 127–137.

  • Thompson, L., Lamshed, R., & Framework, A. F. L. (2006). E-learning within the building and construction and allied trades.

  • Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Kester, L. (2005). The four-component instructional design model: Multimedia principles in environments for complex learning. In: E. Mayer (Ed), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 71–93). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816819.006.

  • Zerfaß, A., & Hartmann, B. (2005). The usability factor: Improving the quality of E-content. In E-Content (pp. 165–182). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/3-540-26387-X_9.

Further reading

  • Attwell, G. (2006). Evaluating E-learning: a guide to the evaluation of E-learning. Evaluate Europe Handbook Series, 2, 1610–0875.

  • Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In: E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2.

  • Cerpa, N., & Shepherd, J. (1996). A cognitive model for facilitating the teaching of computer programming skills. In Proceedings of the 1st Australasian conference on Computer science education (pp. 1–6). ACM.

  • Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, M. W., & Myers, S. L. (1997). The effects of visuals versus no visuals on learning outcomes from interactive multimedia instruction. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 8(2), 46–71. Springer.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. USA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mignon, A., GREYC, Univ. de Caen, Caen, France, & Jurie, F. (2012). PCCA: A new approach for distance learning from sparse pairwise constraints, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2012 I.E. Conference on Biometrics Compendium, IEEE.

  • Mohapatra, S. (2010). Improvised process for quality through quantitative project management: An experience from software development projects. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 2(4), 34–48.

  • Mohapatra, S. (2011). Maximising productivity by controlling influencing factors in commercial software development. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 3(2), 160–179.

  • Mohapatra, S. (2013). Business process re-engineering. Springer: USA.

  • Mohapatra, S., & Gupta, D. (2011). Finding factors impacting productivity in software development project using structured equation modelling. International Journal of Information Processing and Management, 2(1), 14–36.

  • Mohapatra, S., & Mohanty, B. (2013). Return on investment through monitoring cost of quality at Infosys. WCRE, 312–338.

  • Zaharias, P., & Poulymenakou, A. (2005). Implementing the learner-centred design paradigm for web-based training curricula. In E-training practices for professional organizations (pp. 325–332). US: Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-23572-8_39.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Digital Equalizer (DE) American India Foundation, Odisha, India

    Subrata Sarkar & J. Sundarakrishnan

  2. Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar, India

    Sanjay Mohapatra

Authors
  1. Subrata Sarkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanjay Mohapatra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Sundarakrishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjay Mohapatra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sarkar, S., Mohapatra, S. & Sundarakrishnan, J. Assessing impact of technology based digital equalizer programme on improving student learning outcomes. Educ Inf Technol 22, 195–213 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9434-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9434-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation