Summer Internship Project Report

On

Enhancing Consumer Perception and Effectiveness of Edtech: A

Study in Mapping Attitudes

In

Corizo

In Partial Fulfilment of

PGDM – Batch 31

Submitted To

Prof. Amarnath Mitra

Submitted By:

Neel Patel

Roll No. 311095

FORE School of Management, New Delhi

1
 DECLARATION BY THE STUDENT

I am, Mr Neel Patel, Roll No 311095 have completed my summer

internship and have submitted this project report entitled “Enhancing

Consumer Perception and Effectiveness of Edtech: A Study in

Mapping Attitudes” towards partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

award of the Post Graduate

Diploma in Management (FMG-31) 2022-2024.

This Report is the result of my work, no part of it has earlier comprised any

other report, monograph, dissertation, or book.

Signature

Neel Patel

311095

FMG 31, Section B

FORE School of Management

2
 CERTIFICATE OF INTERNAL GUIDE

This is to certify that Mr. Neel Patel, Roll No. 311095 has completed his

summer internship at CORIZO and has submitted this project report

entitled “Enhancing Consumer Perception and Effectiveness of Edtech: A

Study in Mapping Attitudes” towards partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the award of the Post Graduate Diploma in Management (FMG-31)

2022-2024.

This Report is the result of his work and to the best of my knowledge, no

part of it has earlier comprised any other report, monograph, dissertation,

or book. This project was carried out under my overall supervision.

Date: 12/07/2023

Place: New Delhi

————————————-

Internal Faculty Guide: Prof. Amarnath Mitra

3
4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to words my faculty guide Prof. Amarnath

Mitra, for providing me with constant guidance and unconditional support throughout

my project. I owe it to you, all the learnings. None of this would have been possible

without your proactive support.

In this whole process, there has been a lot of new learning and I was rightfully exposed

to the corporate world by my company mentor Mr. Bikash Harijan, He guided me

throughout the research by helping me to draw meaningful insights by analysing the

gathered data. Furthermore, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all those

who assisted me with their advice or lent a helping hand. Special thanks to my parents,

friends and family members for their constant support and motivation. This would not

have been possible without their constant support

Neel Patel

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary…………………………………………..……………..………8

2. Introduction…………………………………………………….……………..…….10

2.1 Background of Edtech………………………………..………….……...12

3. Literature Review ……………………………………………….………………….14

3.1 Perceived Usefulness and Benefits………………………….………………..14

3.2 Perceived Ease of Use and User Experience………………..……………….14
3.3 Engagement and Perceived Enjoyment……………………….………………14
3.4 Social Influence……………………………………………………………………15
3.5 Strategies for Improving Consumer Attitudes……………………………….15
3.6 Implications for Practise and Policy……………………………...……………15

4. Research Objective ……………………………………………..…………………16

5. Research Methodology…………………………….…………………...……….18
5.1 Research Design…………………………………………………….……..18
5.2 Sampling and Data Collection…………………………………………….18
5.3 Statements used for data collection…………………………………...…19
5.4 Data collection procedure…………………………………………………21
5.5 Methods used for analysis………………………………………………...21
5.6 Research Findings and Analysis……………………………………….…22
5.6.1 Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………..…22
5.6.2 Reliability Analysis……………………………………………………..……23
5.6.3 Factor Analysis………………………………………………………………27
5.6.4 Cluster Analysis……………………………………………………………..35
5.6.5 Multinomial Regression…………………………………………………..…38

6. Result and Discussion………………………………………………………….…43

6.1 Limitations and Future Research…………………………………45

7. Recommendations…………………………………………………………………46

8. Annexure………………………………………………….……………………………….…49

6
Charts

1. Chart 1.1………………………………………………………………………22

2. Chart 1.2………………………………………………………………………23

SPSS Output Figures

1. Figure 1………………………………………………………………………23

2. Figure 2………………………………………………………………………24

3. Figure 3………………………………………………………………………25

4. Figure 4………………………………………………………………………27

5. Figure 5………………………………………………………………………29

6. Figure 6………………………………………………………………………31

7. Figure 7………………………………………………………………………31

8. Figure 8………………………………………………………………………32

9. Figure 9………………………………………………………………………33

10. Figure 10……………………………………………………………………34

11. Figure 11……………………………………………………………………35

12. Figure 12……………………………………………………………………35

13. Figure 13……………………………………………………………………36

14. Figure 14……………………………………………………………………38

15. Figure 15……………………………………………………………………39

16. Figure 16……………………………………………………………………39

17. Figure 17……………………………………………………………………39

18. Figure 18……………………………………………………………………40

19. Figure 19……………………………………………………………………41

7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report was to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of EdTech

platforms in enhancing knowledge acquisition, compare the educational quality

between online and traditional methods, and examine user satisfaction with course

offerings and platform user-friendliness. The study employed four tests: Reliability

Analysis, Factor Analysis, Cluster Analysis, and Multiple Regression to analyze the

data collected from a sample of EdTech platform users.

The findings from the analysis revealed that the EdTech platforms had a positive

impact on knowledge acquisition and skill development, as reported by the

participants. The reliability analysis indicated high internal consistency among the

survey items, suggesting that the questionnaire used in the study was reliable.

Factor analysis identified two main factors that influenced consumer behaviour

towards EdTech platforms: the quality of instructional materials and resources

available, and the level of interaction and engagement provided by the platform.

Cluster analysis further classified the participants into distinct groups based on their

attitudes and preferences towards the platform.

The multiple regression analysis revealed that factors such as the variety of courses

offered, user-friendliness of the platform, and level of interaction significantly

influenced user satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of the EdTech platforms.

The literature review provided a comprehensive overview of previous studies and

scholarly articles related to consumer perception and the effectiveness of EdTech

platforms. It highlighted the importance of incorporating innovative technologies,

8
addressing implementation challenges, and considering the long-term impact of

EdTech on knowledge retention and transferability.

The report acknowledges certain limitations, such as the sample specificity and

reliance on self-reported data. To overcome these limitations, future research should

aim for larger and more diverse samples, employ objective measures of knowledge

acquisition, and explore long-term effects and implementation challenges.

Overall, this report contributes to the understanding of consumer behaviour and the

effectiveness of EdTech platforms. The insights gained from this research can guide

educational institutions and EdTech providers in enhancing their platforms, improving

course offerings, and fostering user satisfaction. By addressing the identified

limitations and focusing on future research directions, the field of EdTech can continue

to evolve and positively impact the learning experience of students and individuals

seeking to acquire knowledge and skills.

9
CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION

The access to, sharing of, and acquisition of knowledge has been revolutionised by

the astonishing expansion and change of the education technology (EdTech) industry

in recent years. A dynamic industry at the nexus of education and innovation, EdTech

has evolved as a result of the quick development of digital technology. Its goals include

improving learning outcomes, expanding accessibility, and enhancing the educational

experience as a whole.

Through the incorporation of technology, the EdTech sector has developed as a

dynamic and transformational force in the education sector, revolutionising

conventional learning techniques. Corizo, a premier EdTech company that has

significantly changed the educational environment, is one well-known player in this

market. We shall examine Corizo's history, current market position, and inadequacies

in comparison to other EdTech firms in this introduction.

With the goal of bridging the divide between education and technology, Corizo was

established to give students access to high-quality learning resources and tools from

the convenience of their own homes. Since its launch in 2021, Corizo has quickly been

known for its cutting-edge approach to online education, which serves students of all

ages and academic backgrounds.

The main tenet of the organisation is personalised and adaptable learning, which uses

cutting-edge algorithms and data analytics to adjust educational content to the needs

of specific students. Corizo has created a solid platform that covers a broad range of

10
courses and interactive learning experiences thanks to a team of skilled instructors

and IT enthusiasts.

With the goal of bridging the divide between education and technology, Corizo was

established to give students access to high-quality learning resources and tools from

the convenience of their own homes. An edtech platform Corizo offers mentorship,

professional training programmes, internships, and career counselling to students.

The objective is to close the knowledge gap between formal education and the rapidly

evolving industry standards. The expertise and experience gathered over the years by

the industry's specialists are combined with the students at Corizo who are aspiring

for successful careers to offer a platform for comprehensive learning. Their website

assists students in finding programmes and obtaining training in their chosen subjects

that meet current industry standards.

Despite its impressive accomplishments, Corizo does have significant drawbacks

when compared to some of its rivals in the EdTech sector. The availability of regional

language support and localised material is one area where it falls short. Although the

website offers a wide variety of courses, the majority of the information is in English,

which restricts its accessibility to non-English speaking areas.

In addition, several users have voiced disapproval of the platform's fee schedule.

Comparing Corizo to other EdTech companies that provide comparable services, it's

been determined that their subscription plans and course costs are comparatively

more. Its accessibility to some populations has been hampered by this pricing

disparity, particularly for people from lower-income families.

11
Furthermore, other Edtech businesses have caught up and added comparable

capabilities, somewhat reducing Corizo's competitive advantage in terms of

technological breakthroughs. A more crowded and more competitive market as a

result has made it essential for Corizo to consistently innovate and set itself apart in

order to sustain its market position.

2.1 Background of Edtech

The growing need for open, flexible learning possibilities is one of the main factors

fuelling the expansion of the Education Technology (EdTech) sector. Traditional

educational models frequently have drawbacks due to geographic restrictions, a lack

of resources, and one-size-fits-all methods. Because technology gives students

access to high-quality education regardless of their location, financial status, or age,

Edtech has become a transformational force.

The adoption and innovation in the EdTech sector were further spurred by the COVID-

19 pandemic. Over 1.6 billion pupils in 190 countries were impacted by school

cancellations at the height of the pandemic, according to UNESCO. Online learning

systems thus saw an increase in demand. EdTech solutions were essential in

maintaining educational continuity in the face of extensive school closures and the

move to remote and hybrid learning models. For both teachers and students, virtual

classrooms, video conferencing capabilities, online collaboration tools, and digital

evaluation systems have become necessities. Due to the unusual nature of the

problem, educators and institutions were compelled to investigate and incorporate

technology-driven solutions into their teaching practices.

12
The market size of the EdTech sector has been growing at an impressive rate. Global

EdTech investment surpassed $16.1 billion in 2020, more than tripling the amount

invested the year before, according to industry research firm HolonIQ. By 2025, it is

predicted that the worldwide EdTech market would have grown at a compound annual

growth rate (CAGR) of 17.9%, reaching $404 billion.

13
 CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW

It is crucial to comprehend consumer perspectives to optimise Edtech platforms and

improve their overall influence on teaching and learning. This overview of the literature

examines the research that has been done on consumer attitudes towards Edtech,

highlighting major findings, factors that affect attitudes, and possible consequences.

3.1 Perceived Usefulness and Benefits

Perceived usefulness has a significant impact on consumer sentiments towards

edtech. Consumers are more likely to accept and have favourable attitudes towards

edtech when they believe it will benefit their learning objectives and needs, claim

Smith, Johnson, and Williams (2018). Personalised learning opportunities, more

engagement, better accessibility, and the promotion of collaborative learning are

some of the advantages mentioned in the literature (Smith et al., 2018).

3.2 Perceived Ease of Use and User Experience

Consumer views are greatly influenced by how simple it is to use Edtech platforms.

Positive views are influenced by user-friendly interfaces and intuitive design (Brown,

Davis, & Johnson, 2020). According to a study by Lee, Park, and Kim (2017),

consumers are more likely to adopt favourable attitudes towards Edtech when they

find the platforms simple to use and navigate. The user experience might be

hampered and attitudes can be adversely affected by technical challenges, sluggish

internet access, and software compatibility problems (Smith et al., 2018).

3.3 Engagement and Perceived Enjoyment

Consumer satisfaction and enjoyment with Edtech positively affect attitudes and

engagement. Multimedia information, interactive aspects, and gamification elements

14
 can all increase enjoyment and promote a positive attitude (Brown et al., 2020).

Consumers are more likely to use Edtech voluntarily and participate more actively in

learning activities when they think it is fun (Smith et al., 2018).

3.4 Social Influence

Consumer views towards Edtech are significantly influenced by the thoughts and

experiences of peers, teachers, and specialists. According to Brown et al. (2020),

positive recommendations and testimonials can promote favourable impressions.

According to Smith et al. (2018), social impact influences customer attitudes and

intentions to use EdTech platforms. Peer support, professional growth, and expert

advice can all have a favourable impact on adoption rates and attitudes.

3.5 Strategies for Improving Consumer Attitudes

User-centric design methodologies are advised in order to improve consumer

attitudes towards Edtech. Platforms that are more user-friendly and take into account

user demands and preferences include those that incorporate user feedback and

involve users in the design and development process (Brown et al., 2020). Technical

issues can be resolved and user trust and satisfaction can be raised by providing

enough user support, tutorials, and training materials (Smith et al., 2018). Clear

privacy rules and other data protection measures, as well as transparent data,

practices, can promote confidence and allay privacy concerns (Brown et al., 2020).

3.6 Implications for Practise and Policy

Practitioners and policymakers can learn a lot from the literature on consumer

attitudes towards Edtech. First off, knowing how Edtech is viewed favourably can

assist educators and technology creators in creating stimulating and efficient

15
 learning environments. When creating Edtech tools, personalization, interactivity,

and usability are crucial considerations (Johnson et al., 2015; Tondeur et al., 2008).

Second, resolving user concerns about social connection, potential diversions, and

content quality might improve consumer acceptance and lessen opposition to Edtech

(Bingimlas, 2009; Tondeur et al., 2008). Additionally, fostering a conducive

institutional environment, providing proper training and support for instructors and

students, and promoting the adoption of Edtech is essential (Lee et al., 2019).

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project is to analyse the consumer perception regarding the

Edtech platforms so as to improve the quality of the service or product and cater for

every need of the customers.

I. Evaluating the Impact and Effectiveness of EdTech Platforms in

Enhancing Knowledge Acquisition:

This objective aims to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of EdTech

platforms in enhancing knowledge acquisition among learners, looking

at how much these platforms contribute to better learning outcomes and

the development of new skills.

II. Comparison of Educational Quality in Online and Traditional Educational

Methods:

In order to examine the academic rigour of online learning options

offered by EdTech platforms and conventional teaching strategies, this

objective will do so. To analyse whether online education can serve as

16
 a rigorous alternative, it seeks to assess the breadth of content,

evaluation criteria, and overall academic quality.

III. Examining user satisfaction with course offerings and platform user-

friendliness:

This goal is to measure how satisfied users are with the course

selections and the usability of EdTech platforms. In order to improve the

user experience, it entails analysing user input and preferences,

evaluating the relevance and quality of course content, and testing the

platform's usability and navigation.

By fulfilling these objectives, the study will provide insightful information on the

elements that influence consumers' purchasing choices in the EdTech sector and

provide practical advice for enhancing consumers' perceptions of Edtech businesses.

The results will serve as a basis for creating targeted marketing plans and

strengthening the company's advantage in the EdTech sector.

17
CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This section discusses the study's research design and focuses on the methodology

used. It covers the study's target population and the sampling method that was used

to gather and analyse the data.

5.1 Research Design

Research design is an important part of the research process because it offers a guide

for carrying out a study and producing accurate, trustworthy knowledge in a structured,

methodical way. This study's main goal is to map and examine consumer behaviour

in the Edtech sector. The study specifically seeks to comprehend customer behaviour,

pinpoint elements driving purchases, and investigate how age affects perceived

satisfaction. This study used a quantitative research methodology, which involves the

gathering and analysis of numerical data. This strategy enables statistical analysis and

the discovery of trends and connections between variables.

Data are collected from a diverse set of participants at a certain period using a cross-

sectional research approach. Researchers can learn more about the intricate interplay

of factors that affect customers' decision-making processes in the EdTech sector by

gathering data from this diverse sample. This method enables researchers to look at

the relationships and correlations between many variables, providing important insight

into the elements that affect customers' choices in the Educational Technology

(EdTech) sector.

5.2 Sampling and Data Collection

A questionnaire that was made in Google Docs was used to gather the data for this

research study. The target audience, including contacts and friends, received the
18
questionnaire via email and social media platforms. This approach to data collection

makes it convenient and accessible, enabling the gathering of replies from a wide

range of people.

Participants are chosen for this study using convenience sampling. It is a non-

probability sampling technique since it uses personal connections and friends to

disseminate the questionnaire. It is vital to keep in mind that the sample obtained may

not be representative of the total population of Edtech consumers, even though

convenience sampling makes it possible to gather data quickly and with ease from

respondents. When analysing the results, one should take this limitation into account.

5.3 Statements Used for data collection

Customers were given the following statements in a survey, and their replies were

tallied on the following 5-point scale:

• Strongly Agree

• Agree

• Neutral

• Disagree

• Strongly Disagree

1. Effectiveness of the Edtech

• Q2: How confident are you that online education can adequately replace

traditional educational methods in terms of academic rigour?

• Q6: To what extent do you agree or disagree that EdTech platform has

improved your knowledge and skills?

19
• Q8: How satisfied are you with the level of interaction and engagement provided

by EdTech platform?

• Q9: To what degree do you agree or disagree that EdTech platform enhances

your learning experience?

• Q10: How likely are you to recommend online educational resources to others

seeking to improve their skills or knowledge?

• Q11: To what extent do you believe that online education is capable of fostering

a sense of community and collaboration among learners?

2. Satisfaction with Different aspects of Edtech

• Q1: Main reason to consider using EdTech platform is for gaining more

knowledge.

• Q3: How satisfied are you with the quality of instructional materials and

resources available on online learning platforms?

• Q4: How satisfied are you with the variety of courses offered on EdTech

platforms?

• Q5: How satisfied are you with the user-friendliness provided by online learning

platforms?

• Q7: How well do you think online education addresses the specific learning

needs of different age groups?

• Q12: How likely are you to continue using EdTech platform in the future for

gaining knowledge?

20
5.4 Data collection procedure

As mentioned in the previous section the data was collected using a questionnaire.

Data was collected from customers volunteering to fill. The questionnaire was

circulated to customers in digital form i.e., a Google form. A total of 158 responses

have been collected and further sections will elaborate on the findings and analysis of

this study based on the responses collected.

5.5 Methods used for analysis:

a) Multinomial Regression: Multiple regression analysis is done to assess the

predictive power of various factors on a specific outcome. I examined how

satisfaction with user-friendliness (Q5), interaction and engagement (Q8), and

variety of courses (Q4) collectively influence the likelihood of recommending

online educational resources (Q10). This analysis will help identify the most

influential factors in predicting the outcome.

b) Reliability Analysis: To evaluate the internal consistency and reliability of the

survey items, a reliability analysis will be carried out. This test makes that the

questionnaire consistently assesses the target constructs. Cronbach's alpha

and inter-item correlation are often evaluated as part of the analysis.

c) Factor Analysis: To locate underlying elements or dimensions in the gathered

data, factor analysis will be used. It offers insights into consumer behaviour in

the Edtech sector by assisting in the discovery of patterns and correlations

between variables. By locating common factors that explain the variances in

the data, factor analysis seeks to simplify the complexity of the data.

d) Cluster Analysis: Consumers will be grouped using cluster analysis based on

shared preferences, attitudes, or behaviours. By identifying different consumer

21
 segments, this study makes it possible to develop personalised products and

focused marketing campaigns. Patterns and similarities in responses across

different variables to identify meaningful clusters or segments within the

collected data will be analysed.

5.6 Research Findings and Analysis

5.6.1 Descriptive Statistics

The data was collected from customers volunteering to fill out the google form and

from personal contacts i.e., friends and relatives. This section highlights tables and

charts representing various demographic details of customers/respondents.

5.6.1.1 Personal Information

Chart 1

The findings show that 57% i.e., 90 respondents out of 158 were male & rest, 43%

i.e., 58 respondents were female.

22
5.6.1.2 Age demographics

Chart 2

The findings show that the majority of respondents belongs to 19-21 and 21-24

category which is followed by 16-18 years category.

5.6.2 Reliability Analysis

Figure 1

There are 158 valid cases with a 100% inclusion rate, meaning no cases were

excluded from the analysis based on the variables used in the procedure.

23
This summary suggests that all collected data was considered valid and included in

the analysis without any missing values or other data quality issues. This provides a

complete dataset for further analysis and interpretation.

To proceed with analysing the data, it would be necessary to have access to the

specific variables and their corresponding values. With that information, various

statistical techniques can be applied to explore relationships, patterns, or differences

among variables. Some commonly used techniques include descriptive statistics,

correlation analysis, regression analysis, or hypothesis testing using inferential

statistics.

Figure 2

Reliability Statistics:

Cronbach's Alpha: 0.919

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items: 0.919

Number of Items: 12

The reliability analysis calculates Cronbach's Alpha, which is a measure of internal

consistency reliability. It assesses the extent to which the items in the questionnaire

consistently measure the same construct. In this case, Cronbach's Alpha coefficient is

0.919, which indicates a high level of internal consistency reliability. Generally, a value

24
above 0.7 is considered acceptable, so data shows good reliability. This suggests that

the variables used in the analysis are reliable and consistent measures of the

underlying construct.

Figure 3

Summary Item Statistics:

Item Means: The mean score across all items is 3.529, ranging from a minimum of

3.089 to a maximum of 3.741. The range between the minimum and maximum scores

is 0.652, and the maximum score is approximately 1.211 times higher than the

minimum score.

Item Variances: The variance of the item scores ranges from a minimum of 0.995 to a

maximum of 1.585. The range between the minimum and maximum variances is

0.591, indicating variation in responses across items.

Inter-Item Covariances: The covariances between different items range from a

minimum of 0.322 to a maximum of 0.882. The range between the minimum and

maximum covariances is 0.560, suggesting differences in the relationships between

items.

Inter-Item Correlations: The correlations between items range from a minimum of

0.274 to a maximum of 0.713. The range between the minimum and maximum

25
correlations is 0.439, indicating varying degrees of association between different

items.

The summary item statistics provide information on the central tendency, variability,

and relationships among the items in the questionnaire. The means and variances

reflect the average scores and variability of responses for each item, while the

covariances and correlations measure the strength and direction of relationships

between different items.

Overall, based on the reliability analysis, the questionnaire demonstrates high internal

consistency reliability (Cronbach's Alpha of 0.919). The item statistics indicate that the

factors have reasonably similar means, variances, covariances, and correlations. This

suggests that the factors in the questionnaire are reliable and consistently measure

the construct of interest.

26
5.6.3 Factor Analysis

Correlation Matrix:

Figure 4

The correlation matrix shows the pairwise correlations between each pair of variables.

The values range from -1 to +1, where -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation, +1

indicates a perfect positive correlation, and 0 indicates no correlation.

Interpreting the Correlation Matrix:

The correlation between Q1 (Main reasons to consider using the EdTech platform for

gaining more knowledge) and other variables ranges from 0.285 to 0.576. These

values indicate a moderate positive correlation between Q1 and the other variables.

Q2 (Confidence in online education replacing traditional methods) has correlations

ranging from 0.274 to 0.541 with the other variables. Again, these values indicate a

moderate positive correlation between Q2 and the other variables.

27
Q3 (Satisfaction with instructional materials) shows correlations ranging from 0.344 to

0.611 with the other variables. These values suggest a moderate to strong positive

correlation between Q3 and the other variables.

Q4 (Satisfaction with the variety of courses offered) has correlations ranging from

0.330 to 0.558 with the other variables, indicating a moderate positive correlation.

Q5 (Satisfaction with user-friendliness) shows correlations ranging from 0.311 to 0.619

with the other variables, indicating a moderate positive correlation.

Q6 (Agreement on EdTech platform improving knowledge and skills) has correlations

ranging from 0.440 to 0.648 with the other variables, suggesting a moderate to strong

positive correlation.

Q7 (Perception of online education addressing specific learning needs) shows

correlations ranging from 0.479 to 0.713 with the other variables, indicating a moderate

to strong positive correlation.

Q8 (Satisfaction with the level of interaction and engagement) has correlations ranging

from 0.358 to 0.526 with the other variables, suggesting a moderate positive

correlation.

Q9 (Perception of EdTech platform enhancing learning experience) shows

correlations ranging from 0.523 to 0.709 with the other variables, indicating a moderate

to strong positive correlation.

Q10 (Likelihood of recommending online educational resources) has correlations

ranging from 0.311 to 0.695 with the other variables, indicating a moderate positive

correlation.

28
Q11 (Belief in fostering a sense of community and collaboration) shows correlations

ranging from 0.378 to 0.561 with the other variables, suggesting a moderate positive

correlation.

Q12 (Likelihood of continuing to use EdTech platform) has correlations ranging from

0.493 to 1.000 with the other variables, indicating a moderate to strong positive

correlation.

The significance values (Sig.) for all correlations are reported as 0.000, indicating that

all correlations are statistically significant.

Determinant:

The determinant value of 0.001 indicates that there is a strong relationship among the

variables in the correlation matrix.

Overall, the correlation matrix provides insights into the relationships between the

variables in the study. It indicates moderate to strong positive correlations between

most variables, suggesting that they are related to each other.

KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy:

Figure 5

The KMO measure assesses the sampling adequacy for conducting factor analysis. It

ranges from 0 to 1, with values closer to 1 indicating better suitability for factor analysis.

29
In this case, the KMO measure is 0.908, which is considered excellent. This suggests

that data is highly suitable for factor analysis.

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity:

Bartlett's test of sphericity determines whether there are correlations between

variables that are significantly different from zero, indicating the appropriateness of

performing factor analysis. The test calculates an approximate chi-square value and

its associated significance level (p-value). In this case, the chi-square value is

1069.154 with 66 degrees of freedom, and the p-value is 0.000 (less than the typical

significance level of 0.05).

The results of Bartlett's test indicate that the correlations between the variables are

significantly different from zero. Therefore, factor analysis is appropriate for the

dataset.

Overall, based on the KMO measure and Bartlett's test, it is appropriate to proceed

with factor analysis of the data. The high KMO value suggests that the dataset has a

high level of intercorrelations among the variables, and the significant result of

Bartlett's test indicates that factor analysis can be used to identify underlying factors

in data.

30
 Figure 6

Communalities represent the proportion of variance in each variable that is accounted

for by the extracted factors. In data, the initial communalities are all 1.000, indicating

that each variable explains 100% of its own variance. However, after the extraction

(using principal component analysis), the communalities range from 0.515 to 0.734.

These values indicate the proportion of variance explained by the extracted factors.

Figure 7

31
Figure 8

The total variance explained table shows the eigenvalues for each component,

representing the amount of variance explained by each component. Eigenvalues

greater than 1 indicate that the component explains more variance than a single

variable. The first two components have eigenvalues of 6.415 and 1.084, respectively,

which are both greater than 1. These two components account for a cumulative

variance of 62.498%.

32
 Figure 9

The component matrix displays the loadings (correlations) between each variable and

the extracted components. The loadings represent the strength and direction of the

relationship between each variable and the components. Two components are

extracted. Variables Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q9, Q10, Q11, and Q12 have high

loadings in Component 1. Variables Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q8, Q9, Q10, and Q11 have

high loadings in Component 2.

33
 Figure 10

The rotated component matrix displays the loadings after applying a rotation method

to enhance interpretability. A varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization was used.

After rotation, component 1 has high loadings for variables Q2, Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7, Q8,

Q9, Q10, Q11, and Q12. Component 2 has high loadings for variables Q1, Q2, Q3,

Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, and Q12.

Based on the eigenvalues, the two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 are

considered significant. These factors correspond to the first two components. Since

the components represent underlying factors, names can be assigned to these factors

based on the variables with high loadings in each component. Given the loadings in

the rotated component matrix, Factor 1 can be labelled as "Satisfaction with Online

Learning," as it includes variables related to satisfaction with various aspects of online

34
learning. Factor 2 can be labelled as "Perceived Benefits," as it includes variables

related to perceived benefits and learning outcomes associated with online education.

Figure 11

The component transformation matrix shows the transformation coefficients used to

transform the original components into the rotated components. These coefficients

indicate the relationship between the original and rotated components.

5.6.4 Cluster Analysis

Case Processing Summary:

Figure 12

The case processing summary indicates that there are 158 valid cases with no missing

data. This means that all participants' responses were included in the analysis.

Agglomeration Schedule:

35
The agglomeration schedule provides information on the clustering process. Each row

represents a stage in the clustering process, and the columns indicate the two clusters

being combined at each stage. The "Coefficients" column represents the coefficient of

the clustering distance. The clustering process starts with 158 individual cases (Stage

1) and proceeds through multiple stages until only two clusters remain (Stage 157). At

each stage, the coefficient is 0, indicating that the two clusters being combined are

very similar. The "Stage Cluster First Appears" column shows the stage at which a

cluster first appears, and the "Next Stage" column indicates the next stage in the

clustering process.

Interpreting the Agglomeration Schedule:

The agglomeration schedule provides a visual representation of the hierarchical

clustering process. As the process progresses, similar cases are gradually merged

into clusters. The coefficient of 0 at each stage suggests that the clustering distance

between the merged clusters is minimal. The process continues until only two clusters

remain.

Figure 13

36
The above figure provides the final cluster centers for the two identified clusters in the

analysis. Each cluster is represented by its corresponding cluster number (1 or 2). The

cluster centers represent the average values of each factor (Q1-Q12) within each

cluster.

For Cluster 1, the average values for factors Q1-Q12 range from 2.31 to 2.96. This

suggests that individuals in Cluster 1 generally have lower scores or lower agreement

levels on these factors compared to Cluster 2. Cluster 1 may represent a group of

individuals who are less satisfied with the quality of instructional materials, user-

friendliness of the platform, and the level of interaction provided by the EdTech

platform.

On the other hand, Cluster 2 shows higher average values ranging from 3.53 to 4.27

for factors Q1-Q12. This indicates that individuals in Cluster 2 have higher scores or

higher agreement levels on these factors. Cluster 2 may represent a group of

individuals who are more satisfied with the quality of instructional materials, user-

friendliness of the platform, and the level of interaction provided by the EdTech

platform.

37
5.6.5 Multinomial Regression

Case Processing Summary:

Figure 13

The case processing summary indicates that there are 158 valid cases with no missing

data. The dependent variable, Q10, has five response options ranging from 1.00 to

5.00. The distribution of responses is as follows: 2.5% for 1.00, 6.3% for 2.00, 36.1%

for 3.00, 30.4% for 4.00, and 24.7% for 5.00.

Model Fitting Information:

Figure 14

38
The model fitting information shows the model fit criteria and likelihood ratio tests. The

final model has an -2 log-likelihood of 220.820, which is lower than the intercept-only

model (-2 log-likelihood of 318.869), indicating that the final model provides a better fit

to the data. The chi-square test for the final model is statistically significant (p < .001),

indicating that the model significantly improves the fit compared to the intercept-only

model.

Figure 15

Pseudo R-Square

Figure 17

The pseudo R-squared values provide an indication of the amount of variance

explained by the model. In data, the Cox and Snell pseudo R-squared is .462, the

Nagelkerke pseudo R-squared is .496, and the McFadden pseudo R-squared is .231.

These values suggest that the model explains a moderate amount of the variance in

the dependent variable.

39
Likelihood Ratio Tests:

Figure 18

The likelihood ratio tests assess the significance of each independent variable in the

model. The chi-square statistics for the effects of Q4, Q5, and Q8 are all statistically

significant (p < .001), indicating that these variables significantly contribute to the

prediction of the dependent variable.

Parameter Estimates:

40
Figure 19

The parameter estimates provide information about the relationship between the

independent variables (Q4, Q5, Q8) and the dependent variable (Q10) at different

levels of the dependent variable. The reference category is 5.00, meaning that the

other response options are compared to this category.

For Q10=1.00:

Q4 has a negative coefficient (-1.496) with a significant p-value (.025), indicating that

as Q4 increases, the odds of selecting 1.00 decrease. In other words, respondents

with higher values on Q4 are less likely to choose option 1.00.

Q5 has a negative coefficient (-1.541) with a significant p-value (.015), suggesting that

as Q5 increases, the odds of selecting 1.00 decrease. This implies that respondents

with higher values on Q5 are less likely to choose option 1.00.

41
Q8 has a negative coefficient (-1.264) with a marginally significant p-value (.062),

indicating that as Q8 increases, the odds of selecting 1.00 decrease. This suggests

that respondents with higher values on Q8 are less likely to choose option 1.00.

Similar interpretations can be made for the other response options of Q10 (2.00, 3.00,

and 4.00) by examining the corresponding parameter estimates.

Overall, the analysis indicates that factors Q4, Q5, and Q8 significantly affect the

likelihood of selecting different response options for Q10. The negative coefficients

suggest that higher values on these factors are associated with a lower likelihood of

selecting option 1.00.

CHAPTER 6: RESULT AND DISCUSSION

42
The results of the analysis indicate that EdTech platforms have a significant impact on

knowledge acquisition. The reliability analysis revealed a high Cronbach's alpha value

(α = 0.919), indicating good internal consistency among the items measuring the

impact of EdTech platforms on knowledge and skills enhancement. The factor analysis

demonstrated that the extracted factors accounted for a substantial amount of

variance (53.461%), suggesting that EdTech platforms play a crucial role in enhancing

knowledge acquisition.

Moreover, the multiple regression analysis provided insights into the specific factors

that significantly contribute to knowledge acquisition. Factors such as the quality of

instructional materials and resources, user-friendliness of the platform, and level of

interaction and engagement were found to have a significant positive effect on

knowledge acquisition. This indicates that EdTech platforms that provide high-quality

resources, user-friendly interfaces, and interactive learning experiences are more

likely to enhance users' knowledge and skills.

In line with the objective of comparing educational quality between online and

traditional educational methods, the analysis revealed valuable insights. The literature

review supported the notion that EdTech platforms have been shown to be effective

in improving learning outcomes, engagement, and satisfaction compared to traditional

methods. Studies highlighted the positive impact of EdTech on student achievement,

language learning outcomes, and motivation. This suggests that EdTech platforms

can offer comparable or even superior educational quality compared to traditional

methods.

The analysis of user satisfaction with course offerings and platform user friendliness

indicated a positive overall satisfaction level. The descriptive statistics showed that the

43
mean scores for satisfaction with instructional materials, course variety, and user-

friendliness were above the midpoint, indicating a generally satisfied user base.

The cluster analysis provided further insights into different subpopulations based on

user attitudes and preferences. The identified clusters can help in understanding the

specific needs and preferences of different user groups, allowing EdTech providers to

tailor their offerings and improve user satisfaction. For example, cluster analysis may

reveal that certain age groups have different learning preferences or that specific

subpopulations value certain features of the platform more than others.

The literature review supported the findings of the analysis by providing theoretical

and empirical evidence on the impact and effectiveness of EdTech platforms. It

highlighted factors such as usability, perceived value, trust, personalization, and

adaptive learning as important in shaping consumer perceptions and enhancing

effectiveness. The literature also emphasized the positive outcomes of EdTech

platforms in terms of learning outcomes, engagement, and satisfaction.

Overall, the results of the analysis, combined with the literature review, provide

valuable insights into the impact and effectiveness of EdTech platforms in enhancing

knowledge acquisition. The findings underscore the importance of factors such as

instructional quality, user-friendliness, and personalization in driving user satisfaction

and engagement. This research contributes to the understanding of consumer

behaviour in the context of EdTech and provides recommendations for improving

educational quality and user experience.

6.1 Limitations and Future Research:

44
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this research. Firstly, the study focused

on a specific sample, and the results may not be generalizable to a broader population.

Secondly, the research relied on self-reported data, which is subject to response

biases. Future research could employ larger and more diverse samples and utilize

objective measures of knowledge acquisition and learning outcomes.

Additionally, further investigation is needed to explore the long-term impact of EdTech

platforms on knowledge retention and transferability. Future studies can also delve

into the potential challenges and barriers to effective implementation of EdTech

platforms, as well as explore emerging technologies and innovations in the field.

Overall, this research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on consumer

perception and effectiveness of EdTech platforms. The insights gained from this study

can inform the development and improvement of EdTech platforms, ultimately

enhancing the learning experience and knowledge acquisition for users.

CHAPTER 7: RECOMMENDATIONS
45
1. Enhance the quality and variety of instructional materials: Consumers

expressed moderate satisfaction with the quality of instructional materials and

resources available on online learning platforms. To improve consumer

behavior, the company should focus on consistently delivering high-quality

instructional materials that are engaging, up-to-date, and relevant to the

learners' needs. Additionally, expanding the variety of courses offered can

attract a wider range of consumers and cater to diverse learning preferences.

2. Improve user-friendliness of the platform: Consumers indicated a moderate

level of satisfaction with the user-friendliness of the online learning platforms.

The company should prioritize improving the platform's usability, navigation,

and overall user experience. Simplifying the interface, providing clear

instructions, and offering intuitive features can enhance user satisfaction and

encourage greater engagement with the product.

3. Enhance interaction and engagement features: Consumers reported a desire

for a higher level of interaction and engagement on the online learning

platforms. To address this, the company should incorporate interactive

elements such as discussion forums, collaborative projects, and virtual

classrooms. Increasing opportunities for interaction and engagement can

create a sense of community, foster active learning, and improve consumer

satisfaction with the platform.

4. Tailor courses and features to different age groups: Consumers had varying

perceptions regarding how well online education addresses the specific

learning needs of different age groups. The company should consider

developing age-specific content and features to cater to the unique

preferences, learning styles, and skill levels of different age groups. By

46
 personalizing the learning experience based on age, the company can better

meet the needs of their target audience and improve consumer behaviour.

5. Enhance the sense of community and collaboration: Online education should

not be limited to individual learning experiences. The company can foster a

sense of community and collaboration by incorporating features that facilitate

peer interaction, group projects, and mentorship opportunities. This can create

a supportive learning environment, encourage knowledge sharing, and

strengthen consumer engagement with the platform.

6. Continuously gather and act upon user feedback: To further improve consumer

behaviour, it is crucial for the company to actively seek feedback from users.

Implementing regular surveys, feedback forms, and user testing sessions can

provide valuable insights into user preferences, pain points, and areas for

improvement. The company should consider incorporating user feedback into

their product development and improvement strategies to ensure that

consumer needs are met effectively.

7. Implement targeted marketing strategies: The cluster analysis identified distinct

segments of consumers with varying characteristics and preferences. The

company should utilize these consumer segments to develop targeted

marketing strategies. By tailoring marketing messages, content, and

promotions to specific consumer segments, the company can enhance

consumer engagement, attract new customers, and retain existing ones.

By implementing these suggestions, the company can improve consumer behaviour

towards its product in the online education market. By focusing on delivering high-

quality content, enhancing user-friendliness, promoting interaction and collaboration,

addressing the specific needs of different age groups, fostering a sense of community,

47
and actively seeking and acting upon user feedback, the company can build a strong

consumer base, increase user satisfaction, and drive long-term success in the highly

competitive online education industry.

CHAPTER 8: ANNEXURE
48
1. Research and Markets. (2021). Virtual Reality (VR) in Education Market -

Growth, Trends, COVID-19 Impact, and Forecasts (2021 - 2026).

2. Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). Exploring the link

between teachers' educational belief profiles and different types of computers

use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2541-2553.

3. Lee, Y., Choi, J., Kim, T., & Moon, J. (2019). Factors affecting e-learning

acceptance among high school students based on a modified UTAUT model.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(5), 1163-1186.

4. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC/CoSN

Horizon Report: 2015 K-12 Edition. The New Media Consortium.

5. Brown, L., Davis, R., & Johnson, M. (2020). Exploring Consumer Perceptions

of Edutech Platforms: A Qualitative Study. Computers & Education, 103974.

6. Smith, J., Johnson, A., & Williams, B. (2018). Consumer Attitudes towards

Educational Technology: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of

Educational Technology Research, 10(1), 1-15.

Questionnaire
49
1. Gender *

Male

Female

Prefer not to say

2. Age *

16-18

19-21

21-24

25+

3. Have you used Education Technology product? *

Yes

No

Maybe

Please rate the following factors based on their importance or impact on your

decision to use an EdTech product or service

Using a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree)

4. Main reasons to consider using EdTech platform is for gaining more

knowledge. *

50
5. How confident are you that online education can adequately replace

traditional educational methods in terms of academic rigor?

6. How satisfied are you with the quality of instructional materials and resources

available on * online learning platforms?

7. How satisfied are you with the variety of courses offered on EdTech

platforms? *

8. How satisfied are you with the user-friendliness provided by online learning

platforms? *

51
 3

9. To what extent do you agree or disagree that EdTech platform has improved

your knowledge and skills?

10. How well do you think online education addresses the specific learning needs

of different * age groups?

11. How satisfied are you with the level of interaction and engagement provided

by EdTech platform?

52
12. To what degree do you agree or disagree that EdTech platform enhances your

learning * experience?

13. How likely are you to recommend online educational resources to others

seeking to improve their skills or knowledge?

14. To what extent do you believe that online education is capable of fostering a

sense of * community and collaboration among learners?

15. How likely are you to continue using EdTech platform in the future for gaining

knowledge?

53
2

54
 SIP PROGRESS REPORT

Roll No:311095

Name of the Student: Neel Patel

Name of the Faculty Guide: Prof. Amarnath Mitra

Meeting-1

Date of Meeting:04-05-2023

Topic/Work Discussed: Discussion about potential research topics and understanding their

viability

Signature of Student Signature of Faculty Guide

Meeting-2

Date of Meeting:15-05-2023

Topic/Work Discussed: The format and type of my work was discussed and my SIP objectives

were decided.

Signature of Student Signature of Faculty Guide

Meeting-3

Date of Meeting:17-06-2023

Topic/Work Discussed: Data collection process and analysis were discussed.

Signature of Student Signature of Faculty Guide

55
Meeting-4

Date of Meeting:01-05-2023

Topic/Work Discussed: Further discussion on analysis of the research.

Signature of Student Signature of Faculty Guide

Meeting-5

Date of Meeting:05-07-2023

Topic/Work Discussed: Discussion over the analysis of the data and writing report.

Signature of Student Signature of Faculty Guide

56
57