Research articleOpen accessVol. 14, Issue 11, November 2026
- Received
- 2 October 2026
- Accepted
- 14 October 2026
- Published
- 3 November 2026
- Licence
- CC BY 4.0
How to cite
Dr S. Abdul Thaha (2026). Digital Divide and Accessibility of MOOCs among Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDGs): A NEP 2020 Perspective. International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences, 14(11), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.63345/ijrhs.net.v14.i11.IJRHS1126001
Abstract
India's National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 positions technology-enabled learning and equity as twin pillars of reform, promoting Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) through the national SWAYAM platform as a means of widening participation in higher education. However, the emancipatory promise of MOOCs is conditioned by a multi-layered digital divide that falls most heavily on Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDGs)—the gender, geographic, socio-cultural, disability, and economic categories identified in NEP 2020. This study investigates the magnitude, structure, and consequences of that divide for MOOC accessibility and completion among SEDG learners, and interprets the findings against the policy commitments of NEP 2020. The purpose is threefold: to quantify first- and second-level access gaps, to model how those gaps translate into differential MOOC participation and completion, and to derive evidence-based policy implications. A quantitative, cross-sectional, comparative survey design was adopted, using a representative learner dataset calibrated to published Indian secondary statistics on connectivity, device ownership, and digital literacy. Analysis combined a weighted Digital Access Index, gap decomposition, chi-square tests, and binary logistic regression. Results show SEDG learners trailed non-SEDG learners on every access indicator, with a mean Digital Access Index of 0.41 against 0.72 (gap index 0.43); MOOC awareness, enrolment, and completion declined steeply and cumulatively, yielding SEDG completion of 9.3% versus 24.6%. Digital access, digital literacy, and language of instruction emerged as the dominant predictors of completion, while SEDG status retained a significant residual negative effect. The study concludes that NEP 2020's MOOC-based equity goals require bundled interventions targeting access, literacy, and language jointly rather than open provision alone.
Keywords: Digital Divide, MOOCs, SWAYAM, NEP 2020, Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups, Educational Equity, Digital Literacy, Online Learning, Inclusive Education
References
[1] Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. Government of India. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf
[2] Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2021). Equitable and inclusive education: Issues of socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Government of India. https://www.education.gov.in
[3] Ministry of Education, Government of India. (n.d.). SWAYAM: Study Webs of Active-Learning for Young Aspiring Minds. https://swayam.gov.in
[4] United Nations. (2020). Policy brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond. United Nations. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid-19_and_education_august_2020.pdf
[5] Rao, A. B., & Hashmi, S. (2021). Digital divide and online education in India during the pandemic. Journal of Education Technology Systems, 50(2), 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211047865
[6] Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2017). Determinants of internet skills, uses and outcomes: A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1607–1624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007
[7] van Deursen, A. J. A. M., &Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In Communication and Information Technologies Annual (Vol. 10, pp. 29–52). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002
[8] van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4–5), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004
[9] Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164887
[10] Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6699.001.0001
[11] van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society, 21(2), 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082
[12] Reich, J., &Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A. (2019). The MOOC pivot. Science, 363(6423), 130–131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7958
[13] Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B., Bennett, A., Woods, D., & Emanuel, E. J. (2013). The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why? SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2350964
[14] Hansen, J. D., & Reich, J. (2015). Democratizing education? Examining access and usage patterns in massive open online courses. Science, 350(6265), 1245–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab3782
[15] Kumar, P., & Kumar, A. (2022). SWAYAM and MOOCs in India: Reach, participation and challenges for equitable access. Indian Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2), 112–128. https://journals.ncert.gov.in/IJET
[16] ASER Centre. (2021). Annual Status of Education Report (Rural) 2021. ASER Centre/Pratham. https://asercentre.org
[17] Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. (2023). The Indian telecom services performance indicators. TRAI. https://www.trai.gov.in
[18] Hollands, F. M., &Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and reality. Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED547237.pdf
[19] Lembani, R., Gunter, A., Breines, M., &Dalu, M. T. B. (2020). The same course, different access: The digital divide between urban and rural distance education students in South Africa. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 44(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1694876
[20] Selwyn, N. (2016). Digital downsides: Exploring university students’ negative engagements with digital technology. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8), 1006–1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1213229
[21] Czerniewicz, L., & Brown, C. (2013). The habitus of digital “strangers” in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01281.x
[22] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
[23] Blinder, A. S. (1973). Wage discrimination: Reduced form and structural estimates. Journal of Human Resources, 8(4), 436–455. https://doi.org/10.2307/144855
How to cite
Dr S. Abdul Thaha (2026). Digital Divide and Accessibility of MOOCs among Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDGs): A NEP 2020 Perspective. International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences, 14(11), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.63345/ijrhs.net.v14.i11.IJRHS1126001
Licence
This article is open access, published under the CC BY 4.0 licence. Copyright remains with the authors.