The Economics of Education: Evaluating the Impact of Digital Learning Platforms

Syed Sibghatullah Shah
Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
Correspondence to: s.sibghats@eco.qau.edu.pk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.70389/PJCS.100001

Additional information

• Ethical approval: N/a
• Consent: N/a
• Funding: No industry funding
• Conflicts of interest: N/a
• Author contribution: Shah SS – Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, review and editing
• Guarantor: Shah SS
• Provenance and peer-review:
  Commissioned and externally peer-reviewed
• Data availability statement: N/a

Keywords: digital learning platforms, cost-efficiency, educational outcomes, digital infrastructure, game theory.

Peer Review
Received: 11 September 2024
Accepted: 22 September 2024
Published: 8 October 2024

Introduction

The proliferation of online learning platforms has revolutionized the way schools operate by providing more adaptable, scalable, and economical alternatives to brick-and-mortar schools.¹ The growth of adaptive learning platforms, Learning Management Systems (LMS), and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) has changed the way that education is provided, accessed, and managed around the world.² The rate of change has sped up since the COVID-19 pandemic forced schools around the world to switch to online and hybrid programs. With the help of digital learning platforms, teachers can tailor their lessons to each student and focus on their needs.³ Interactive content, tools that adapt to different learning styles, and tests that happen in real time let students learn at their own pace. Also, these sites make it easier for teachers and students in different parts of the world to work together. However, the widespread use of these technologies has started ongoing arguments about how long digital education will last, its cost, and its efficiency. Even though there are many good things about online education, access, the digital divide, and quality control are big concerns.

Changing focus from traditional classroom methods to online resources has cost a lot of money. Classrooms, libraries, and dorms are all physical structures that are necessary for traditional schools to work. Digital learning platforms, on the contrary, have much lower operational costs because they do not need any physical space or materials. After the initial investment in technology infrastructure, it does not cost much more to allow a lot of students to use these platforms. Because of this, many believe that online education can attract more students at a lower cost and in locations with insufficient physical facilities. Digital platforms usually make education more affordable for students by removing the need to pay for transportation, housing, and other direct expenses associated with going to a traditional school.⁴ As an example, MOOCs have democratized education by making high-quality education accessible to anyone, anywhere in the globe at little or no cost. Having said that, there are some issues with the economic model of digital education. The cost of creating and maintaining digital platforms, providing technical support, and ensuring that educators are adequately prepared to teach online can quickly mount up. While taking classes online can help with budgets, it does mean that students in less developed countries or those living in rural areas will need access to a computer and the internet regularly, which can exacerbate existing educational gaps.⁵

One great thing about digital learning platforms is that they can help students who might not be able to go to a regular school. Students who live in low-income, rural, or otherwise inaccessible areas can get an education despite physical and logistical problems by using online resources.⁶ Online learning environments are also great for students who have disabilities or other issues that make going to a regular school hard. To be available, this, on the contrary, needs digital infrastructure, like having the right devices and a steady internet connection. People in low-income countries cannot get to these resources, which is a big problem when we try to minimize the digital divide. A lot of money needs to be spent on infrastructure, supporting systems, and teacher training before digital platforms can fully live up to their promise of making education more accessible. The goal of these platforms is to make learning more personalized, but if accessibility is not a top priority, it may make inequality worse. Some things that might make digital education less accessible are a lack of content in multiple languages, not enough help for students with disabilities, and user interfaces that are not well thought out.

Students who take classes online can also choose to learn at their own pace, which may help them be more productive and remember things better. Digital tools like multimedia content, interactive simulations, and working together with other people can make engagement much higher. However, online education is not considered as good as traditional classrooms because it does not give each student the one-on-one attention and help that they need.⁷ Although students can learn online, they might not get the same structure, motivation, and responsibility as they would in a traditional classroom. It is because students have trouble controlling themselves and managing their time without being directly supervised by teachers that a lot of them do not finish their online classes, especially MOOCs. The overall quality of digital education is affected by how easy it is for students to use the platform, how much help is given to students, and what resources are available to the school. If you have the right mix of skilled teachers, cutting-edge technology, and enough money, online education can be just as useful as traditional classroom instruction.⁸

The main goal of this review is to answer the question: What effects, if any, have easier access, lower costs, and better results in online education had on students? The way these three parts work together will help us fully understand how digital learning fits into the overall school system. Our goal of the study is to find out if digital platforms can replace or make traditional school systems better in trouble spots like developing countries.

Objectives of the Review

1. To find the amount of money that digital learning platforms save as compared to older ways of teaching.
2. To determine how online resources can help underprivileged areas and developing nations increase their students’ access to quality education.
3. To find out how digital learning impacts student engagement, retention, and performance in the classroom; and evaluate the variables that influence these outcomes.
4. Considering the educational demands and difficulties on a worldwide scale, investigate the viability of digital learning platforms over the long run.

Literature Review

The economics of education have recently been in the news in a way that has never been seen before due to online learning platforms. Many studies have been done in the last twenty years to find out if online education is possible, how much it costs, and how well it works. Researchers support digital platforms because they think they can lower tuition and make education more accessible for more people.⁹ Because of how quickly online education grew during the COVID-19 pandemic, recent studies have changed their focus from looking at how these platforms can be scaled up and made more accessible to exploring how they affect learning outcomes and the finances of institutions. ¹⁰

The Evolution of Digital Learning

When schools first started offering online classes, Blackboard and Moodle were the first LMSs to do so.¹¹ In terms of digitizing education, these resources were a step forward, but their main goal was to add to traditional classroom teaching, not replace it. Bigger changes happened when MOOCs came out in the 2010s. Sites like Udacity, Coursera, and edX that allow to learn online have made school easier for a lot of people.¹² Online MOOCs allow students from all over the world to learn from well-known universities’ high-quality materials. Many academic and professional subjects were covered in the classes, including computer science, business, and data analytics.

The best thing about MOOCs was that anyone in the world could take them and learn. People who could pay for college or lived close to well-known universities like Stanford, Harvard, or MIT did not have as much access to their great academic resources before they were made public.¹³ Large-scale open online courses (MOOCs) have taken away the problems that students from low-income families or those who could not afford to go to a top university used to have.¹⁴ MOOCs are also helpful because they let students go at their own speed. This makes it easier for them to go to school and do other things, like work and family. The courses were easier to use and more interactive than traditional distance learning because they had video lectures, reading materials, quizzes, and peer forums.

MOOCs were praised at first, but a low completion rate makes people question their functioning.¹⁵ Researchers led by Hew et al.¹⁶ found that only 7–10% of students who signed up for MOOCs were able to finish them. There are many reasons why completion rates are so low, such as the fact that students do not feel motivated, interested, or supported in a traditional classroom. MOOCs are made so that thousands of students can take them at the same time. This makes it hard for teachers to give each student personalized feedback or help them with specific problems. Students had a hard time staying motivated in online classes because they did not get the one-on-one attention from teachers or the chance to network with classmates that they do in regular classrooms. With set due dates, regular feedback, and one-on-one conversations, a traditional classroom is a better place for students to stay engaged and responsible.¹⁷ Many MOOCs, on the contrary, did not have enough ways to make sure that students stayed on track because they were mostly self-paced and independent. Even though this brought a lot of people to the platform, it did not help their education. Because MOOCs are free or very cheap, students may not be able to afford to invest in them, which could be one reason for this trend.

The low completion rate of MOOCs made course providers realize that they add certifications and credentials as an option for students to pay for when they finish the course.¹⁸ By tying MOOCs more closely to actual career advancement and professional development, the hope was that their perceived value would rise. Students had a real incentive to finish by earning certificates that showcased their knowledge and abilities to prospective employers. Nanodegrees (edX) and MicroMasters (Udacity) are two examples of more recent credentialing options that have emerged on various platforms; they offer in-depth, field-specific education.¹⁹ Even though these programs were still less expensive than four-year colleges, they were better organized and gave students more tools to succeed, such as peer support, graded assignments, and even live mentoring. Because students were more likely to stick with these more structured programs, problems with low completion rates went down.

Many more schools are starting to offer MOOCs and other types of hybrid courses that mix online materials with more traditional classroom methods.²⁰ Due to the digital divide, many people do not use online learning. In developing countries, not everyone always has access to the internet and tech gadgets. To stay in business, many online learning platforms have started to charge for premium content or team up with universities. This might make it harder for students from poorer families to get the knowledge at the lower cost they need.

Economic Models of Digital Education

Digital learning has both pros and cons when compared to more traditional ways of learning from an economic point of view. ²¹ Unfortunately, the way classrooms, lecture halls, and other on-campus buildings are constructed means that traditional education has high fixed costs. ²² Fixed costs that put a lot of stress on school budgets include building upkeep, utilities, teacher pay, and running the school. Because digital learning platforms do not need as much physical infrastructure, they can grow faster and spend less on technology-based lessons. Schools should have buildings, grounds, and services like cafeterias, libraries, labs, dorms, and residence halls. These investments in infrastructure are necessary to meet the standards of today’s schools, but they can be costly and often need to be kept up to date and fixed over time.

These fixed costs cannot be cut by a lot, even if the number of students changes. Like, even if the number of students at a university goes down, it will still have to pay for the upkeep of its campus, staff, and facilities. Old ways of teaching are expensive and hard to change because they are based on fixed costs. This is especially true for schools that do not always have a lot of students. On the contrary, digital learning platforms do not need as much of this physical infrastructure.²³ It costs much more than nothing to add a new student once the digital platform and course materials are made. Universities can manage a lot of students from afar with LMS like Canvas, Moodle, or Blackboard.²⁴ This means they do not have to build more campuses. Because of this, schools can accept students from all over the world, which increases their income without raising their costs by the same amount. Students do not have to be in class all the time, and they can make their schedules because of digital platforms that can deliver educational content at different times.

From 2019 to 2026, the e-learning market is expected to grow across different categories, as shown in Figure 1. The online education market is expected to grow from $101 billion in 2019 to $167.5 billion in 2026, making it the leader in the sector. More than doubling from $19.5 billion to $48.5 billion, mobile e-learning is another promising growth area. Virtual classrooms are also anticipated to experience significant growth, going from $11.5 billion to $33.5 billion. E-learning as a whole, including LMS, is expanding at a rapid pace, meeting the rising demand for online courses around the world. The market for rapid e-learning will double between 2019 and 2026, even though it is still relatively small. Due to rising demand for digital learning platforms and other technical developments, the e-learning industry is expected to grow at a rapid pace in the next few years.

The capacity to take advantage of economies of scale is a major economic benefit of digital learning platforms.²⁶ When businesses expand their operations to a larger scale, they can take advantage of economies of scale, which allow them to lower their costs per unit of output. A digital learning platform’s principal and fixed cost is the initial investment in creating the platform and the course content. Once the platform is operational, adding more students does not substantially raise costs since an almost infinite number of users can access the same content. In their study, Hennessy et al. ²⁷ emphasized that online education is great for expanding access in low-income and developing regions because it can be scaled up without drastically increasing costs. Increasing the number of students in a conventional school usually means adding more teachers, more classrooms, and more administrative staff. Institutions can serve more students on a more consistent budget due to digital platforms that sidestep these regulations.²⁸ This scalability is particularly important for organizations that want to expand their global reach or provide education in areas without easy access to traditional educational institutions.

Digital learning platforms have the potential to drastically lower the total cost of education for students. Traditional education often comes with extra costs like commuting, housing, textbooks, and other things that come up when we have to be on campus all the time. If kids do not have to leave the house, they can save a lot of money on home and transportation costs. They can still go to school. In particular, this is true for people who live in places where rent is very high or who are studying abroad. Open educational resources, or openly licensed educational resources (OERs), are digital textbooks that we can get for free on a lot of websites.²⁹ Highly useful school materials can be shared by using OERs. Traditional schools charge a flat tuition fee, but digital platforms like pay-per-course or subscription services allow students to choose how much they want to spend.

Digital platforms are changing the way schools make money from the old way of charging tuition to new ways. Coursera and LinkedIn Learning are two subscription models that allow students to take different courses for a fee that can be paid monthly or yearly.³⁰ Schools can make money all year with this model instead of having to rely on the old way of charging tuition every semester. On this plan, they can choose more classes and have more freedom than with regular tuition, which for one semester costs the same or less. Students in online schools such as edX and Udacity can pay extra for things like private tutoring or certification, but the course materials are usually free. With this “freemium” model, students can get an education for free or very little cost. When students pay for a diploma or a better learning experience, the school makes money. ³¹

Another new trend is for digital learning platforms to work with companies to give their employees training and skill-building. While, working with Udacity big internet companies like Google and AT&T, make “nano degrees” that fit the needs of certain fields. Firms are ready to spend money to help their workers learn new things, so these partnerships make sure that online schools always have cash. Some platforms get some of their money from ads and sponsored content. Sites that teach job skills and professional development may use ads to make the courses cheaper. This way, the sites can charge students very little or nothing at all while still making money for the sponsors. In more formal school settings, this does not happen as often.

To promote a digital world that is sustainable, inclusive, and trustworthy, Figure 2 showcases six important global outcomes. With these results in mind, we can work towards a world where people of all ages, genders, and socioeconomic backgrounds have equal opportunities to use the Internet and other digital technologies. It stresses the need for competent and ethical digital transformation by governments, businesses, and civil society. To ensure governance that addresses the transnational nature of digital connectivity, policies should be informed and appropriate for the digital age. Digital identities can be both safe and welcoming due to the framework’s emphasis on resilience and security in digital practices.

A digital learning platform is a better, more scalable business model, but it has drawbacks. Building the platform, creating good content, and training teachers may be expensive. Schools must invest in infrastructure, security, and customer service to make their platforms safe and useful for students. Traditional schooling must be rethought as more people learn online. If schools rely on high tuition fees to pay for buildings and teachers, going online may require them to change how they operate and how much they charge. Schools may also be hesitant to use digital learning tools due to concerns about education quality and accreditation. ³³ Digital divide issues occur when low-income or developing countries lack reliable internet and technology. If everyone had the Internet, education could be fairer. If some groups cannot fully benefit from online learning, it could be unfairer. Despite these issues, online education could significantly reduce school costs worldwide by offering cheap and flexible learning to students worldwide.

Accessibility and Inclusivity in Digital Learning

Online classrooms are a great way for people who used to not be able to go to school to learn. Some of the ways they make it easier to go to school are by taking care of issues with location, transportation, and schedules. Digital platforms can make it easier for everyone to get what they need and work better when they are used correctly. Some of these are the ways through which the platform is designed, technology is set up, and whether support systems are available for different types of learners. Being able to learn from anywhere is one of the best things about online classrooms. It might be hard or impossible for students who live in areas that are far away, not well served, or otherwise ignored to get to regular schools. By letting all students access learning materials from anywhere, these platforms can help close the achievement gap. They only need a computer or phone that can connect to the internet.

For instance, online learning platforms can make high-quality learning materials available in places where there are not many educational resources. ³⁴ For students from poor areas, this decentralization of power could end racial differences in educational attainment by making it easier for them to get a good education.³⁵ These platforms usually have content in more than one language so that they can serve students who speak different languages. Asynchronous learning, which lets students access course materials and do homework at their own pace, is another benefit of digital platforms besides the fact that they remove physical distance.³⁶ This feature will be very helpful for students who work, live, or are related to people in a different time zone than their classmates, or who have other obligations that keep them from going to class at regular times.

For disadvantaged groups to have better access, there needs to be reliable digital infrastructure like the Internet and the right devices.³⁷ Numerous people still have a hard time getting reliable broadband internet access in many parts of the world. In 2020, UNESCO collected data that showed that almost half of the people in the world do not have access to the internet.³⁸ Students who live in places with bad internet may find it harder to learn because they have to deal with more interruptions, slower download speeds, and not being able to stream videos. ³⁹ The same is true for students; some might not have access to new tech like desktops, laptops, or tablets.

When platform developers make digital learning environments, they should use universal design principles. These principles are based on the idea that all students, no matter how smart they are, should have easy access to learning materials. To do this, we make sure that content can be accessed by students with disabilities, offer different types of content (like text, audio, and video), and give students a lot of different ways to interact with and be graded on the content. Digital learning platforms are more flexible and allow for more personalization than traditional classrooms. Smart phones are useful, but they are not always the best way to do homework or participate in interactive classes. For online learning to work, we need to be able to connect to the internet regularly. But in many parts of the world, going online is either not possible at all or costs a lot of money. It is important to have access to the internet and hardware, but it is also important to be digitally literate or know how to use technology well.

Investing should do more than just building digital learning platforms if they want to make them truly accessible and open to everyone. For digital learning to work, governments, schools, and tech companies need to put money into infrastructure, training for teachers, and support systems. A very important first step is to give underserved and rural areas reliable internet access. Part of this is making sure that families with low incomes can get broadband more easily and for less money. One way to fix these infrastructure problems is for the government and businesses to work together on projects that make digital devices cheaper for both students and teachers. Tech-savvy teachers need to be taught how to use it most effectively in the classroom. When teachers know how to use digital platforms well, they can help their students more and get the most out of the features these tools offer.

Impact on Student Outcomes

Being able to learn online has both good and bad points. Some pros are being able to learn and change, while some cons are not being motivated or interested in learning and having a bad overall learning experience. To keep students interested, the platform can also give them more difficult material to work on if they show they can handle it. Being able to adapt lessons to the needs of each student is a huge improvement over the traditional classroom, where teachers have to change their lessons all the time to meet the needs of students with very different skill levels.⁴⁰

Students can also use digital tools that give them immediate feedback on how well they understand the material. Most of the time, students do not get feedback or grades from their teachers until after tests have been graded by hand. On the contrary, digital simulations, interactive exercises, and automated quizzes can give us immediate feedback which helps them fill knowledge gaps and improve performance along with retention. ⁴¹ Digital learning can help students do better in school, in large part because it is flexible. People who work or have other obligations that make it hard to stick to a strict class schedule will benefit from this extra time. Students who use digital tools to help them balance school and other obligations may feel less stressed, be able to stay in school longer, and do better overall in school.

High school students are more likely to do their hard work when they use game-like elements like leaderboards, badges, or rewards for finishing assignments.⁴² There are peer collaboration tools on a lot of different digital platforms that allow students from all over the world to work together, share ideas, and give each other feedback. With peer review systems, group projects, and discussion boards, students can feel like they are part of a community and be interested in the course material, which is not always possible with traditional online education. ⁴³ More engaged students and a better learning environment made possible by these social interactions may have positive effects on how well students do in school.

When kids are in a regular classroom, they can ask their teachers questions, get quick answers, and get help right away. Body language and facial expressions can help teachers figure out which students need extra help and give it to them. Unfortunately, students may feel alone and disconnected from their teachers when they are learning online because they cannot have the same level of immediate, face-to-face interaction.⁴⁴ Online learning has many benefits over traditional classrooms, but one big problem is that there is no structure or accountability. A traditional education is based on going to class regularly, participating in class discussions, and turning in assignments on time.

Every year, thousands of students sign up for MOOCs. However, many of these students have trouble because the courses are not structured. Notably, 7–10% of students who sign up for a MOOC finish it.⁴⁵ So, even though MOOCs give students access to high-quality educational content, the fact that they do not offer personal interaction, guidance, or accountability can make many students lose interest and have bad results. In digital learning environments, students face unique problems, such as having to self-regulate and possibly not getting the help they need when they are having trouble. According to the research, there are several benefits and drawbacks to utilizing digital learning platforms in modern classrooms.⁴⁶ Although these platforms have great potential to make learning more accessible, personalized, and engaging for students through adaptive technologies, they are often hindered by issues like low completion rates, insufficient personal interaction, and inequalities in internet infrastructure. It is already difficult to generalize about how digital platforms affect student outcomes because of the large variation in platform quality and institutional support. There is evidence in the literature that suggests remote and disadvantaged communities may benefit from digital learning opportunities. But for it to work, we must execute it with care, offer learners ongoing support, and collaborate to eliminate the digital divide. Further research is needed to optimize digital learning for various educational settings and to investigate its long-term impacts.

Methods

Online learning environments’ monetary and pedagogical effects are thoroughly evaluated in this article that uses a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies. A global perspective on the impact of digital platforms on education has been sought after by this method, which seeks to combine statistical insights with real-world case studies and theoretical frameworks. Both general tendencies and specific instances will be captured in this way. Some of the methods used in this review include statistical analysis, synthesis of the literature, case study reviews, and the application of game theory through matrix analysis.

Statistical Analysis

This study uses a dataset that shows trends in education around the world. We utilize some of the most important variables from the World Bank and the International Telecommunication Union. One of these factors is internet penetration, which shows the extent to which digital infrastructure is available by measuring the number of people in a region that can connect to the internet. The easiness for students to use digital learning platforms shows the efficiency of these platforms. This variable is very important for figuring out how people in low-income areas and other areas use digital resources. More students got their start by using digital platforms. Some people think that digital education could save money for each student compared to more traditional methods. The reason for this is that digital platforms have lower costs of operation and can grow more easily.

One way to find out how well digital platforms keep students’ attention and allow them to keep learning is to look at retention rates, which are the percentage of students who stay interested in their courses over time. Another variable that describes that online education raises grades is the completion rate, which is the percentage of students who finish all of their coursework. This method made sure that the dataset included educational and economic factors from all over the world so that a full analysis of digital learning platforms could be done in a range of socioeconomic and infrastructure settings. The data makes it possible to look at the bigger effects and trends of online education around the world by combining quantitative measures like cost-effectiveness with measures of student outcomes.

Case Study Review

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Kenya, India, and Brazil were three developing countries that used online learning platforms. We chose these countries based on things like how different their landscapes were, how well their digital infrastructure worked, and the unique educational problems each of these countries had to deal with during the global shift to distance learning. Along with the quantitative data, the case studies give a thorough qualitative analysis that shows how digital education changed access and outcomes for communities that were already struggling. India is an interesting case study because of the work it has done to connect its old school systems with new ones, especially in rural areas. We have explored digital learning platforms in India by focusing on how the public and private sectors worked together to make these platforms available to people in rural areas that do not have access to basic infrastructure like power plants and internet connections. Our discussion emphasized how the government is using mobile internet to fix problems with infrastructure, using the DIKSHA platform as an example.

Our case study will centre on Kenya and how mobile learning platforms are helping to expand access to education in rural areas that lack easy access to conventional schooling. Digital learning solutions that rely on mobile devices would do well in Kenya due to the country’s high rate of mobile internet penetration. In this research, we have examined the way through which mobile learning services like Eneza Education have helped students who would have trouble getting an education otherwise. Through an examination of Kenya’s mobile-first strategy, this case study demonstrated the extent through which digital platforms can bridge the digital achievement gap in regions with variable or nonexistent fixed internet service. As an alternate perspective, Brazil sheds light on the government’s efforts to combat socioeconomic barriers in public schools by implementing digital education platforms during the pandemic. A big part of Brazil’s digital education plan was to reach students from low-income families, whose parents might not know how to use computers or have access to the internet. Focussing on areas like favelas and rural areas with spotty internet in the study, we have investigated Brazil to make sure everyone had the same access to digital learning tools.

Proactively comparing these three countries, we can see patterns like the digital divide, which happens when people do not have equal access to technology and makes it harder for everyone to learn, and infrastructure problems, which determine the future of digital platforms. When we examine how flexible digital platforms are in different classrooms, we will consider things like student involvement, the readiness of teachers, and how well digital interventions work overall at improving academic performance.

Game Theory and Matrix Analysis

Important people in digital education are schools, governments, students, and tech service providers. The game-theoretic analysis helped us learn more about how their strategies worked together. As a way to examine strategic decision-making, we used game theory to model how the different people involved in the decision-making process might interact with each other when it comes to adopting and investing in digital learning platforms. A big benefit of this method was that it helped people find rivalries, alliances, and incentives that could shape the future of online learning. We focused on scenarios where stakeholders’ interests could be complementary or competing and used payoff matrices to analyse them. Despite financial limitations, governments aim to ensure that as many students as possible can attend classes, in contrast to educational institutions that may prioritize efficiency and quality. Tech companies aim to maximize profits through subscription models or service fees, while students desire accessible and affordable education. The possible outcomes (benefits or costs) for each stakeholder under different scenarios were displayed in a matrix that we constructed; an example is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Stakeholder matrix. Stakeholder    Adopt a High-Quality Digital Platform (High Investment) Adopt a Low-Cost Digital Platform (Low Investment).

Government	High cost, High benefit (Improved student outcomes) Low cost, Low benefit (Minimal improvement in outcomes)
Educational Institution	Medium cost, medium benefit (Improved access but with resource constraints) Low cost, Low benefit (No significant improvement in access or quality)

^{Source: Authors Calculations}

Our research led us to equilibrium strategies in which each side’s goals are balanced and maximized. We were able to assess the influence of stakeholder trade-offs on policy choices, platform adoption rates, and the long-term viability of digital education models by applying game theory to the situation. The economic and social dynamics involved in introducing digital platforms into classrooms can be better understood with the aid of these insights. Digital learning platforms’ effects on education’s bottom line can be better understood with the help of this mixed-methods strategy, which integrates quantitative data analysis, case study reviews, and game-theoretic modelling. By bringing together different approaches, we intend to record not only worldwide tendencies in online education but also the specific countries’ and institutions’ experiences. Incorporating game theory into the analysis process adds a new layer of clarity to the various stakeholders’ strategic decisions and how they will shape education going forward.

Results

This section presents the results of the methodology, which outlined a mixed-methods approach. The findings are categorized into three primary areas: the effect on accessibility, student outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. The results were supported by case studies, and game theory, which provided insight into the dynamics of stakeholder interactions and the potential advantages and disadvantages of adopting digital learning platforms.

Table 2: Regression analysis.

Variable	Coefficient	Standard Error	T-statistic	P-value	95% Confidence Interval Lower	95% Confidence Interval Upper
Constant	36.03	3.29	10.94	2.16e-18	29.49	42.57
Internet penetration	0.337	0.028	11.89	2.25e-20	0.281	0.393
Device access	0.414	0.029	14.20	5.08e-25	0.356	0.472
Cost efficiency	0.542	0.060	9.03	2.26e-14	0.423	0.662
Teacher experience	0.196	0.180	1.09	2.80e-01	-0.162	0.555
Government investment	0.00198	0.0005	3.97	1.20e-04	0.0010	0.0029
Parental support	-0.285	0.080	-3.56	4.55e-04	-0.445	-0.125

^{Source: Authors Calculations}

In Table 2, government investment has a positive coefficient of 0.00198, meaning that an increase in investment (in millions of USD) is positively correlated with completion rates. Parental support, with a coefficient of -0.285, suggests that lower parental support is associated with a decrease in completion rates, and both control variables are statistically significant at the 0.001 level. The regression analysis shows interesting connections between important factors related to digital learning and the number of students who finish their courses. This gives a true picture of how these factors work in the world of education. The constant term of 36.03 means that the baseline completion rate would stay around 36% even if there were no major improvements to the digital infrastructure. In school systems that have not fully embraced digital platforms but still manage to get some students to do well, this is what usually happens.

As the coefficient for internet penetration goes up to 0.337, it becomes much more important for improving completion rates. The completion rate goes up by about 0.34 percentage points for every 1% rise in the number of people who have access to the internet. This shows how important having access to the internet is in the real world as a base for digital learning. Because they can access more online resources and learning platforms, students are more likely to finish their courses where internet access is high, like in developed countries or cities. Access to devices has a strong positive relationship with how well students do in school (0.414). The completion rate goes up as more students get computers, tablets, or smartphones. In many low-income countries, getting a device has been hard in the past. But now, governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are focussing more on programs to get students cheap or free devices. This variable’s big effect makes these kinds of programs even more important since students who have access to devices can use online materials, interact with others while learning, and take tests more reliably.

With a coefficient of 0.542, cost efficiency also has a big effect on completion rates. Governments and schools can spend more on good learning materials, support services, and teacher training when they use digital platforms that cut costs. This helps students do better in school. This variable shows that digital education can help the economy in the long run. In a global sense, countries that have invested in scalable, low-cost digital solutions like large-scale online course platforms have seen a big rise in the number of students who stay in school and finish, especially during the pandemic. While teacher experience is linked to higher completion rates, the coefficient is only 0.196 and the p-value is higher. This means that while more experienced teachers may help improve outcomes, their effect is not as direct as infrastructure factors like having access to the internet and devices. In real life, this may show how hard it is for many teachers to get used to digital platforms, even if they have been teaching for a long time. This is especially true in places where professional development for digital teaching is scarce.

To raise completion rates, government investment is very important (with a coefficient of 0.00198). Higher completion rates are seen in countries that have put a lot of money into building strong digital learning ecosystems. For example, by offering broadband access or making public online educational platforms, these countries tend to have higher completion rates. This is especially important in places like India and Brazil, where the government has been trying to close the digital divide. Lack of parental support is linked to lower completion rates, as shown by the negative coefficient of -0.285 for parental support. This finding is especially important in places were going to school is seen as a luxury or where parents do not know much about computers and the internet. In the real world, this means that even if there is good technology, a student may not be able to do well if their parents are not involved or encouraging them. This shows the importance of programs that involve the whole family and the community to make sure that digital learning is fully adopted by both students and their families.

Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Learning Platforms

Economics studies conducted at various educational institutions have shown that using online learning platforms rather than the more conventional, in-person methods considerably cuts costs. Costs per student fell between 25% and 30% on average.⁴⁷ The scalability of digital platforms is vital in generating these cost savings because adding new students after the initial investment in technology infrastructure has a low marginal cost. Less demand for classroom space, utilities, and maintenance is the main driver of reductions in physical infrastructure costs. As more education moved online, these became superfluous. The move away from printed textbooks and towards digital resources like e-books and the internet has also cut down on printing and distribution expenses.⁴⁸ The use of digital tools for administrative tasks, such as automated grading systems and digital quizzes, also led to time savings for faculty. One major obstacle, particularly for smaller institutions or those in developing nations, was the initial setup of digital learning infrastructure, which included servers, internet bandwidth, and LMS. Regardless, the upfront investments paid off in the long run with significant operational savings, so the costs were worth it.

Table 3: Comparative analysis for savings from digital learning and traditional learning platforms.

Cost Category	Traditional	Learning	Digital	Learning %
	(USD)		(USD)	Savings

Classroom Space & Utilities Printed Materials Faculty Time & Admin Total Cost Per Student	$500	$50	90%
	$200	$30	85%
	$400	$250	37.5%
	$1,100	$330	70%

^{Source: Authors Calculations}

The most notable savings in terms of classroom space and printed materials were seen in the use of digital learning platforms, as shown in Table 3. These operational expenses were significantly reduced with the shift to online education, allowing for more scalable education.

Impact on Accessibility

During the COVID-19 pandemic, case studies in Brazil, India, and Kenya showed that online education had a major influence on students’ ability to get an education. Students from underprivileged areas were able to access high-quality education in nations with strong internet infrastructure because digital platforms helped close the gap between rural and urban education systems. Millions of students in rural areas of India were able to finish their schooling even though the country was hit hard by the pandemic due to the government’s investment in digital learning, especially through mobile internet and platforms like DIKSHA.^49-51 On the contrary, students in Kenya’s underserved areas had a harder time making good use of mobile learning platforms due to the country’s digital divide.⁵²

Similarly, in Brazil, digital platforms were not widely available due to socioeconomic factors, particularly in rural areas and favelas where internet connectivity was unreliable. During the COVID-19 pandemic, digital learning platforms saw a dramatic surge in enrolment, particularly in areas with strong internet connections. Our research of worldwide data shows that digital platforms have contributed to narrowing the achievement gap in countries where internet access is widespread. This is because, unlike before, they made high-quality education accessible to students in underprivileged or far-flung places. With the advent of digital platforms in rural schools, students who were previously unable to attend school due to distance were finally able to do so. Government support for digital learning tools and the proliferation of mobile internet helped narrow the achievement gap between India’s urban and rural populations. ⁵³

One major challenge that the Kenyan case study highlighted was the digital divide. Digital learning was more challenging to implement in areas with poor or nonexistent internet connection, even though mobile learning platforms did improve educational access in some areas. There was a lack of access to a wide variety of digital educational resources for students in these regions due to the unreliability of mobile internet connections. Similarly, the Brazilian government’s attempts to implement online learning platforms in public schools have had varying degrees of success. Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds encountered considerable obstacles, especially concerning device access and dependable internet connectivity, in their transition to the new digital environment, in contrast to their urban counterparts. Because of this, the disparity between students in adequately served areas and those in underprivileged areas became even wider.

Table 4: Enrolments in digital learning platforms.

Country	Pre-Pandemic Enrolment in Digital Learning	Enrolment During Pandemic	Increase % Increase	Internet Penetration (%)
India	5 million	20 million	300%	41
Kenya	2 million	8 million	300%	17
Brazil	10 million	30 million	200%	66

Table 4 clearly shows that enrolments in digital learning platforms increased dramatically during the pandemic in all three nations, but the success of these platforms was highly dependent on the level of internet penetration. Highlighting the significance of internet infrastructure in supporting digital education, Kenya struggled in regions with low connectivity, in contrast to India and Brazil, which were able to adapt.

Student Outcomes

There was a marked difference in the impact of digital learning on students’ academic performance depending on factors like infrastructure quality, students’ access to technology, and the platform’s design. Digital learning was linked to better academic performance in nations or regions with a high income and a well-developed internet infrastructure.^{54, 55} Students could learn at their own pace due to adaptive learning technologies, flexible scheduling, and real-time feedback. When compared to students in more conventional classrooms, those with more resources were more likely to finish the course and retain it. The opposite was true in regions with inadequate digital infrastructure or in nations with low per capita income. Because teachers were also adjusting to the new digital ways of teaching, students had trouble staying engaged because of unreliable internet, a lack of devices, and inadequate support. In Kenya, students in rural regions who depended on mobile phones for schoolwork performed worse academically and had lower completion rates than their counterparts in urban areas who had access to computers and fast internet.

Digital learning was linked to better academic performance in high-income regions with a well-developed internet infrastructure. An increase in standardized test scores was found to be positively correlated with reliable digital infrastructure, according to regression analysis. Student outcomes were worse in low-income areas with weak digital infrastructure.⁵⁶ For example, in Kenya, students whose only access to the internet was through their mobile phones had a hard time staying engaged and doing well in class. When contrasted with students who had access to computers and consistent internet, this led to lower completion rates and worse academic performance. Similarly, Brazil’s less populous and economically disadvantaged regions encountered comparable difficulties.

Table 5: Correlation between internet access and student performance.

Region Internet

Access (%)

Average Test Score (Traditional)

Average Test Score (Digital Learning)

% Change

High-income regions Middle-income regions	85%	78	85	+9%
	60%	70	73	+4%
Low-income regions	25%	60	58	-3%

^{Source: Authors Calculations}

Digital learning platforms improved student performance in regions with high internet access, as shown in Table 5. Access to technology is critical for successful educational outcomes; however, student performance slightly declined in regions with poor digital infrastructure, such as low-income areas. Digital learning platforms drastically cut operational costs, especially in physical infrastructure and printed materials, proving their cost-effectiveness. The initial setup costs were a major obstacle, particularly for smaller institutions. In terms of convenience, digital platforms boosted enrolment, especially in areas with widespread internet access. However, the widespread adoption of mobile learning solutions is still hindered by the digital divide in countries like Kenya, where reliable internet access is scarce. Students’ outcomes varied according to the availability of the internet. Due to a lack of technical resources and inconsistent internet access, low-income areas struggled academically, while high-income areas saw significant improvements. These results show how important it is to have a solid digital infrastructure and equal access to technology if digital learning platforms are going to be successful all over the world.

Game Theory and Strategic Stakeholder Analysis

Applying game theory to the strategic decisions made by institutions of higher education, government agencies, and technology companies about the implementation of online learning platforms helps shed light on these decisions. Different parties involved in this context aim to achieve different things as i) governments want to maximize public funding for education so that more people can afford to go to school, institutions want to keep tuition low while still providing quality education, and ii) tech companies want to maximize profits while making sure their systems can scale. Whatever these stakeholders decide about investing in low-cost or high-quality platforms has an impact on student performance, long-term efficiency, and scalability. Through the application of game theory to the modelling of policy and investment interactions, we have gained a better understanding of the possible outcomes by identifying the trade-offs that each party encounters.

Payoff Matrix: Government and Educational Institutions

The strategic interactions between educational institutions and governments are captured in the following payoff matrix. There are two primary options for both parties: either choose a low-cost, low-investment platform or a high-quality, high-investment digital platform. The decisions are rooted in various priorities, including short-term financial limitations, educational gains in the future, and the ability to scale.

Table 6: Game-theoretic payoff matrix for government vs. educational institution (hypothetical payoffs in utility).

Government/Institution	Adopt a High-Quality Digital Platform (High Investment)	Adopt a Low-Cost Digital Platform (Low Investment)
Government: High Investment	(5, 4) High cost, high benefit for both	(3, 2) High cost for government, low benefit for institutions
Government: Low Investment	(2, 3) Low cost, medium benefit for government, medium benefit for institutions	(1, 1) Low cost, low benefit for both

^{Source: Authors Calculations}

An educational institution’s payoff and a government’s payoff are two hypothetical utility values, where the first is the payoff for the institution and the second is for the government (5, 4). The government pays a substantial price for high-quality platforms, but in the long run, it saves money and students benefit greatly (higher test scores, graduation rates, etc.). Higher levels of student engagement and achievement are the result of educational institutions’ enhanced access to well-designed platforms. The government will still pay a substantial price if an institution chooses a cheap platform, but the institutions will reap fewer benefits from the government’s investment because of the inefficient use of technology (3, 2). While the government saves money, institutions end up paying for a high-quality platform’s implementation and upkeep if they opt for low investment while the government chooses for heavy investment (2, 3). The institutions reap moderate but not optimal benefits in terms of student outcomes as a result of the government’s inability to provide comprehensive support. Since the platforms are less effective and scalable when both parties choose low-cost solutions, educational outcomes do not improve much. Both sides end up with less-than-ideal results because, despite efforts to minimize costs, the long-term benefits are severely limited (1, 1).

Equilibrium Analysis

When institutions and the government decide to invest in a top-notch digital platform, the Nash equilibrium is reached in this matrix (5, 4). Despite the high initial investment required by both parties, this approach proves to be the most practical in the long run due to the positive effects on student outcomes and the savings experienced by the institution.

Payoff Matrix: Government and Technology Providers

Another key interaction occurs between governments and technology providers. Governments want to expand access and improve outcomes, while technology providers are focused on maximizing profit by delivering digital platforms at varying quality levels.

Table 7: Game-theoretic payoff matrix for government vs. technology providers.

Government/Provider	Develop High-Quality Digital Platform	Develop Low-Cost Digital Platform
Government: High Investment	(6, 5) High cost, high benefit for both parties	(4, 3) High cost for government,  for providers
Government: Low Investment	(3, 4) Moderate benefit for both, lower costs	(2, 2) Low cost, low benefit for both parties

^{Source: Authors Calculations}

When the government puts a lot of money into it and the tech company makes a good digital platform, everyone wins. The government benefits from better student outcomes, and technology companies profit from a product that is both profitable and easy to scale. The government ends up spending more money without getting the education it wants if it invests heavily but the provider gives a cheap platform that is not very effective (4, 3). The providers get a decent cut of the sale, but it is not nearly as much as they would with a better product. For (3,4) Both the government and the provider may feel limited by limited resources, but there is moderate success if the government makes a low investment and the provider offers a high-quality platform. When both parties choose a low investment level, there is little gain (2, 2). Although the platform is reasonably priced, it is not effective or scalable, so it does not improve educational outcomes and reduces the provider’s profitability.

Equilibrium Analysis

A win–win situation would be (6, 5), in which the government invests heavily and the tech company provides a top-notch platform. The government improves educational outcomes, and the technology provider makes money by providing a scalable system, so both parties benefit to the fullest extent possible. Nevertheless, if one side opts for cheap or subpar solutions, the advantages for both sides diminish, and the future viability is put at risk.

Payoff Matrix: Educational Institutions and Students

Finally, we take a look at how schools and students work together, specifically taking a look at the pros and cons of paid, high-quality platforms vs. free or low-cost alternatives that may have fewer features and support.

Table 8: Game-theoretic payoff matrix for institutions vs. students.

Institution/Student	High-Cost Platform with Advanced Features	Low-Cost Platform with Basic Features
Institution: High Investment	(5, 6) High benefit for students and institutions (engagement, performance)	(3, 4) Moderate outcomes for both, limited benefits
Institution: Low Investment	(2, 3) Low institutional investment, moderate benefit for students	(1, 2) Minimal benefit for both, basic access only

^{Source: Authors Calculations}

Students and schools alike reap the rewards of well-priced platforms with cutting-edge capabilities (such as adaptive learning, interactive simulations, and tools for peer collaboration) in case of payoff (5, 6). There is a win–win situation: students get a well-rounded education, and schools boost retention, engagement, and performance. For (3, 4), moderate results are produced by a low-cost platform that has some advanced features. Even if the platform is not great at delivering engagement or adjusting to different learning styles, students still gain from it. For payoff (2, 3), students pay more for specific features, but the institution does not see major improvements due to low institutional investment. When both sides choose to invest little and use simple platforms, the educational results are subpar, and participation and achievement are low (1, 2).

Equilibrium Analysis

Educational institutions should prioritize investing in advanced platforms that provide students with engaging and personalized learning experiences, as shown by the (5, 6) equilibrium. In the long term, this is good for schools and students alike because it increases the likelihood that students will actively participate in and finish their coursework.

Strategic Insights from Game-Theoretic Analysis

These matrices allow us to see how students, educational institutions, technology providers, and governments all made strategic decisions and traded off on important points. This analysis reveals that high-quality platforms require significant upfront investments, but they pay off in the long run with better student outcomes, more scalable institutions, and lower overall costs. Putting limits on digital learning because stakeholders are focused on cutting costs in the short term could negatively impact students’ learning and make it harder to expand. The study shows how important it is for online learners to work together and make sure their strategies are aligned. To make sure that digital platforms deliver high-quality, scalable educational outcomes, governments, institutions, and technology providers must work together to look at the pros and cons. These groups can make a digital learning environment that works well and lasts if they work together and spend money on good digital solutions.

The study shows that digital learning platforms can help students do better in school, give more people access to education, and lower school costs if they are used correctly. On the contrary, these platforms cannot function without digital infrastructure and institutional support. Areas with weak infrastructure still confront problems, especially with fair access and academic achievement, while regions with strong internet and well-funded schools have reaped many benefits from online learning. The application of game theory brings attention to the strategic factors that stakeholders need to think about when implementing digital platforms. The success of these endeavours in the long run will depend on how well they balance cost and quality.

Discussion

The widespread availability of inexpensive, high-quality educational resources made possible by digital learning platforms has the potential to greatly diminish educational inequality. Our research shows that in times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, when conventional schooling is interrupted, underprivileged and marginalized populations can still gain access to digital platforms. For example, when traditional schools closed in rural areas of Kenya and India, students were able to keep up with their studies thanks to the rise of online platforms. Nonetheless, the digital divide—the disparity between individuals with and without access to digital resources—undermines this potential. Consistent with previous research, our results show that digital learning has the potential to widen existing gaps in opportunity if we do nothing to fix our infrastructure.^{57, 58}

Even though more students enrolled in digital platforms in both Kenya and Brazil, those in areas with slow internet or outdated devices struggled to fully utilize these tools. This provides support for the conclusions drawn from studies conducted by Alqahtani and Rajkhan, ⁵⁹ who argue that disparities in infrastructure can worsen the digital learning achievement gap between students in urban and rural areas. To reduce the digital achievement gap, our findings support the need to invest in internet infrastructure, teacher professional development, and student assistance programs. These investments are necessary for digital learning to realize its potential of creating an equal playing field for students from all socioeconomic backgrounds.

Our study stands out because we addressed unique issues in every instance. In Kenya, for instance, where mobile phone penetration is high but bandwidth and data costs are prohibitive, we examined the efficacy of mobile learning. Since mobile platforms can only solve part of the problem, more extensive infrastructure improvements and more reasonably priced data plans are crucial. When it comes to saving money, our research shows that schools that use digital learning platforms reap significant economic benefits. Organizations can save a lot of money by automating administrative tasks, decreasing their dependence on physical infrastructure, and doing away with printed materials. We found that compared to more conventional approaches to education, we can save 25–30% per student. Especially in the context of higher education, this is in line with the findings of Allen and Seaman,⁶⁰ who indicated that institutions providing online education could considerably cut operational costs.

Servers, software licenses, faculty training, and student support are all part of the technology infrastructure, but many institutions, especially smaller ones or ones with fewer resources, find it difficult to afford the upfront investment. We found that bigger schools can afford to implement digital learning on a larger scale and save money in the long run, but smaller schools or those in developing countries have a much harder time doing so. This confirms what Bates et al. ⁶¹ already found although digital learning platforms save money in the long run, they need a lot of money up front, which can be a problem for schools that are not as well-off.

Our research stands out because we examined these economic factors in great depth in various regional settings. For Brazil, the government’s push to integrate digital platforms into public schools yielded some encouraging results. However, the overall effectiveness was hindered by unreliable infrastructure in economically disadvantaged regions. This indicates that the transition to online learning must be accompanied by focused investments in infrastructure if digital platforms are to be genuinely cost-effective. The significance of governments and educational institutions strategically aligning to maximize benefits and overcome upfront costs is further highlighted by our game-theoretic analysis. Cooperation and high-quality platform adoption are necessary for the equilibrium strategy to maximize educational outcomes and cost savings, according to the analysis, even though the initial investment is high.

Digital learning platforms’ capacity to evolve with the changing needs of diverse student populations and the ability of institutions to maintain and update these platforms determine their long-term sustainability. While digital platforms are scalable, our research shows that they lose some of their lustre when they cannot adapt to the unique requirements of students from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds. Digital learning greatly enhances student outcomes, such as test scores and retention rates, in high-income regions where schools have access to modern technology and students have dependable internet connections. However, low-income communities suffer from worse academic performance and lower completion rates because support systems such as digital literacy programs and technical assistance are not available. Kizilcec et al. ⁶² and other studies have shown how important it is for students to be involved in online learning environments. A big challenge is making sure that all kinds of students can use these platforms, even those who might not have the drive, skills, or resources to do well online. To ensure the long-term sustainability of the digital education system, it is crucial to have adaptive learning technologies, high-quality content, and strong student support systems.

Previous studies may have overlooked something crucial, according to our findings: focussing solely on technology does not make digital platforms flexible enough; localized content and pedagogical approaches are also required. Countries with high mobile phone penetration, such as Kenya, could benefit greatly from education delivered through mobile-friendly platforms. However, without affordable internet access and adaptive technologies, these platforms will never be able to capture students’ attention. Furthermore, according to our game-theoretic analysis, the alignment of stakeholders, especially between governments and technology providers, is crucial for attaining long-term sustainability. To make high-quality platforms financially viable for institutions in developing regions, collaborative investment is necessary. These platforms offer better scalability and engagement.

In addition to the existing literature on the function of digital learning in education, our results contribute a context-specific analysis that bridges the gap between theoretical advantages and practical obstacles. By combining economic, technological, and pedagogical factors, our research provides a more comprehensive perspective than previous studies that have only focused on the technical or financial aspects. There is a lack of strategic literature on how stakeholder decisions affect the overall outcomes of digital learning initiatives; however, by incorporating game-theoretic modelling into the research, we have tried to minimize this gap. When it comes to the low completion rates of MOOCs, our research provides a thorough understanding of the way through which infrastructure and strategic investment can help overcome the obstacles that have been pointed out by other studies. We discovered that digital learning platforms greatly improved academic performance in places with the right infrastructure and support from institutions. It became even clearer that focused regional investments were needed when digital platforms made inequality worse in places with bad infrastructure.

Limitations of the Study

Despite its merits, this study has certain limitations that prevent it from fully illuminating the monetary and pedagogical effects of online education. To begin with, the research relies heavily on secondary sources and case studies from a small number of nations, which might not be representative of the whole range of problems experienced by other parts of the world, particularly in places with distinct cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. Furthermore, the use of game-theoretic modelling simplifies stakeholder interactions, which might not capture all the intricacies of the real world, like changes in educational policies, political instability, or unexpected economic developments. Another drawback is that the data only cover the time right after the COVID-19 pandemic ended, rather than during the entire outbreak. Thus, additional longitudinal studies may be necessary to conclude how digital learning platforms affect student outcomes and the sustainability of institutions over the long run. Last but not least, our research presupposes the permanence of digital infrastructure and support systems, which might not hold in areas vulnerable to technological upheavals or budgetary restrictions.

Conclusion and Future Research Directions

Due to their scalable, adaptable, and cost-effective solutions, digital learning platforms have revolutionized the education economy. These platforms can either supplement or even replace more conventional schooling methods. This study’s results show that these platforms can increase educational opportunities, especially for students in rural and underserved areas. Reduced operational costs and more flexible, self-paced learning opportunities are two ways in which digital platforms expand access to and participation in education. Still, we have a long way to go before we reach our goal, particularly in light of the widening digital divide, low levels of engagement, and limited infrastructure.

Our research shows that digital learning platforms can help governments and institutions save money, but there are still many obstacles to overcome. For instance, it is always important to train teachers and put money into technology infrastructure. This is very true in countries that are still developing. Additionally, our case studies in Brazil, India, and Kenya demonstrated that affordable, dependable internet is crucial for digital learning to be successful. The current body of evidence suggests that policymakers and educational leaders should prioritize helping teachers and students adapt to online classrooms. Digital tools that are more interactive and adaptive are crucial, according to the study, for engaging students and catering to their various learning styles and needs. Platforms that rely solely on passive content delivery, such as video lectures or static readings, are less successful at retaining students and ensuring learning outcomes. To keep students engaged and supported throughout their digital learning journey, it is crucial to craft content that is more engaging, personalized, and relevant to their context.

Future Research Directions

Further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of digital learning on student outcomes; this study only gives a snapshot of how digital platforms were used during the COVID-19 pandemic. The effects of digital learning on employability, career advancement, and habits of lifelong learning, as well as on short-term performance indicators such as test scores and course completion rates, warrant further investigation in future research. To ascertain the actual efficacy of online learning in promoting academic achievement and career advancement, these studies ought to follow students for multiple years.

More study is required to determine the long-term monetary effects of digital learning on educational institutions, although it has shown short-term cost-effectiveness. Included in this more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis are the upkeep and improvement of digital platforms, faculty training, and ongoing support systems. In the future, researchers should look at the ways through which schools in high-income and low-income areas try to find ways to save money without lowering the quality of their work. The digital divide is still one of the main reasons students are less involved in online learning. To close this gap, future research should focus on making low-bandwidth platforms that work well in places with bad internet access, exploring public–private partnerships to improve internet access in rural areas, and finding ways for the government to subsidize digital devices. Also, we should look into other technologies that can help you reach areas that do not have a lot of access, such as offline content delivery systems and mobile learning.

Digital platforms could help make learning more personalized, which is a cool idea. The tech is still very new, though. It is important to keep researching ways to improve adaptive learning technologies so that they can better meet the needs of all students. Kids in schools have different levels of access to technology and know-how for using it, so this is very important. Researchers need to find out how well these adaptive tools work for different types of people in terms of keeping them interested, helping them remember things, and helping them learn. To support digital learning platforms, we need to do more than just get new tech. We need to change the way we think about education in general. In the future, researchers should look into how these new ways of teaching affect student engagement and achievement, as well as the best ways to teach teachers how to use digital tools effectively.

Concerns about privacy and security have grown over the past few years because digital platforms collect huge amounts of information about how students behave, how they learn, and what they achieve. When people study the moral issues surrounding collecting data in online education, they need to come up with ways to keep student data safe. More research needs to be done on how to use data-driven insights to improve education while protecting students’ privacy. Finally, digital learning platforms have the potential to completely change the way we learn by making it easier to access and bettering the results. These platforms can be expanded, changed, and are cheap. We need to close the digital divide, fix the infrastructure, and make more interesting adaptive content for these platforms so that they can be fully used. Policymakers, schools, and tech companies need to work together to make sure that all students, no matter their income, can access and benefit from digital education. This can be done by investing in the right infrastructure, training, and support systems.

References

1.     Gupta V, Jain N. Harnessing information and communication technologies for effective knowledge creation: Shaping the future of education. J Enterprise Inform Manage. 2017;30(5):831-55.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-10-2016-0173
 
2.     García-Peñalvo FJ, Fidalgo-Blanco Á, Sein-Echaluce ML. An adaptive hybrid MOOC model: Disrupting the MOOC concept in higher education. Telemat Inform. 2018;35(4):1018-30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.012
 
3.     Kem D. Personalised and adaptive learning: Emerging learning platforms in the era of digital and smart learning. Int J Soc Sci Human Res. 2022;5(2):385-91.
 
4.     Haleem A, Javaid M, Qadri MA, Suman R. Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustain Operat Comput. 2022;3:275-85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
 
5.     Lembani R, Gunter A, Breines M, Dalu MT. The same course, different access: The digital divide between urban and rural distance education students in South Africa. J Geogr High Educ. 2020;44(1):70-84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1694876
 
6.     Tate T, Warschauer M. Equity in online learning. Educ Psychol. 2022;57(3):192-206.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2062597
 
7.     Serdyukov P. Does online education need a special pedagogy? J Comput Inform Technol. 2015;23(1):61-74.
https://doi.org/10.2498/cit.1002511
 
8.     Reich J. Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone can’t Transform Education. Harvard University Press; 2020.
https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674249684
 
9.     Artero JM, Borra C, Gómez-Alvarez R. Education, inequality and use of digital collaborative platforms: The European case. Econ. Labour Relation Rev. 2020;31(3):364-82.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1035304620943109
 
10.  Kezar A. How Colleges Change: Understanding, Leading, and Enacting Change. Routledge; 2018.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315121178
 
11.  Carvalho A, Areal N, Silva J. Students’ perceptions of Blackboard and Moodle in a Portuguese university. Br J Educ Technol. 2011;42(5):824-41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01097.x
 
12.  Penprase BE, Penprase BE. Online education in STEM. STEM education for the 21st Century. 2020:69-92.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41633-1_5
 
13.  Walsh T. Unlocking the gates: How and why leading universities are opening up access to their courses.
 
14.  Maun D, Belousova T, Mukherjee M. Students’ experiences with online teaching and learning: Perspectives from India. In Global Higher Education During and Beyond COVID-19: Perspectives and Challenges. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2022. pp. 81-101.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9049-5_8
 
15.  Shapiro HB, Lee CH, Roth NE, Li K, Çetinkaya-Rundel M, Canelas DA. Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Comput Educ. 2017;110:35-50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003
 
16.  Hew KF, Cheung WS. Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educ Res Review. 2014;12:45-58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001
 
17.  Pollock JE, Tolone LJ. Improving Student Learning One Teacher at a Time. ASCD, 2020.
 
18.  Waks LJ. Massive open online courses and the future of higher education. In Contemporary Technologies in Education: Maximizing Student Engagement, Motivation, and Learning. 2019. pp. 183-213.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89680-9_10
 
19.  Waks LJ, Waks LJ. MOOCs and career qualifications: certificates, credits, diplomas and beyond. In The Evolution and Evaluation of Massive Open Online Courses: MOOCs in Motion. 2016. pp. 83-101.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-85204-8_5
 
20.  Pérez-Sanagustín M, Hilliger I, Alario-Hoyos C, Kloos CD, Rayyan S. H-MOOC framework: Reusing MOOCs for hybrid education. J Comput Higher Educ. 2017;29:47-64.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9133-5
 
21.  Akhter S, Javed MK, Shah SQ, Javaid A. Highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of E-learning. Psychol Educ. 2021;58(5):1607-14.
 
22.  Haggans M. The future of the American campus. On the Horizon. 2015;23(1):25-32.
https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-11-2014-0038
 
23.  Chirikov I, Semenova T, Maloshonok N, Bettinger E, Kizilcec RF. Online education platforms scale college STEM instruction with equivalent learning outcomes at lower cost. Sci Adv. 2020;6(15):eaay5324.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay5324
 
24.  Durak G, Çankaya S. Learning management systems: Popular LMSs and their comparison. In Handbook of Research on Challenges and Opportunities in Launching a Technology-Driven International University. IGI Global; 2019. pp. 299-320.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6255-9.ch016
 
25.  Statista Research Department. Size of the global e-learning market in 2019 and 2026, by segment (in billion U.S. dollars). Statista. Published July 6, 2022. Available from: https://www.statista.com
 
26.  Baumers M, Dickens P, Tuck C, Hague R. The cost of additive manufacturing: Machine productivity, economies of scale and technology-push. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2016;102:193-201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.02.015
 
27 Hennessy S, D’Angelo S, McIntyre N, Koomar S, Kreimeia A, Cao L, Brugha M, Zubairi A. Technology use for teacher professional development in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Comput Educ Open. 2022;3:100080.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100080
 
28.  Kerssens N, Nichols TP, Pangrazio L. Googlization (s) of education: Intermediary work brokering platform dependence in three national school systems. Learn Media Technol. 2023:1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2258339
 
29.  Adil HM, Ali S, Sultan M, Ashiq M, Rafiq M. Open education resources’ benefits and challenges in the academic world: a systematic review. Global Knowl Memory Commun. 2024;73(3):274-91.
https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-02-2022-0049
 
30.  Baker RM, Passmore DL. Value and pricing of MOOCs. Educ Sci. 2016;6(2):14.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6020014
 
31.  Zhou Y, Cao G, Shen XL. Building an economically sustainable online learning ecosystem with freemium model: A sequential mixed-method approach. Educ Inform Technol. 2023:1-29.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12347-7
 
32.  Krasikova TY, Petrov AV, Petrov PA, Yu Krasikova T, V Petrov A, A Petrov P. Transformation of higher education in digital economy. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences;96.
 
33.  Watermeyer R, Crick T, Knight C, Goodall J. COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. High Educ. 2021;81:623-41.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00561-y
 
34.  Singh M, Adebayo SO, Saini M, Singh J. Indian government E-learning initiatives in response to COVID-19 crisis: A case study on online learning in Indian higher education system. Educ Inform Technol. 2021;26(6):7569-607.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10585-1
 
35.  Felix ER, Trinidad A. The decentralization of race: Tracing the dilution of racial equity in educational policy. Int J Qualit Stud Educ. 2020;33(4):465-90.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1681538
 
36.  Namada JM. Learning management systems in the era of e-learning. In Machine Learning Approaches for Improvising Modern Learning Systems. IGI Global. 2021. pp. 169-90.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-5009-0.ch007
 
37.  Reddick CG, Enriquez R, Harris RJ, Sharma B. Determinants of broadband access and affordability: An analysis of a community survey on the digital divide. Cities. 2020;106:102904.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102904
 
38.  Lorente LM, Arrabal AA, Pulido-Montes C. The right to education and ICT during COVID-19: An international perspective. Sustainability. 2020;12(21):9091.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219091
 
39.  Rizvi YS, Nabi A. Transformation of learning from real to virtual: an exploratory- descriptive analysis of issues and challenges. J Res Innovat Teach Learn. 2021;14(1):5-17.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2020-0052
 
40.  El Sadik A, Al Abdulmonem W. Improvement in student performance and perceptions through a flipped anatomy classroom: Shifting from passive traditional to active blended learning. Anatomic Sci Educ. 2021;14(4):482-90.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2015
 
41.  Haleem A, Javaid M, Qadri MA, Suman R. Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustain Operation Comput. 2022;3:275-85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
 
42.  Aldemir T, Celik B, Kaplan G. A qualitative investigation of student perceptions of game elements in a gamified course. Comput Human Behav. 2018;78:235-54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.001
 
43.  Shapiro HB, Lee CH, Roth NE, Li K, Çetinkaya-Rundel M, Canelas DA. Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Comput Educ. 2017;110:35-50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003
 
44.  Murday K, Ushida E, Ann Chenoweth N. Learners’ and teachers’ perspectives on language online. Comput Assist Lang Learn. 2008;21(2):125-42.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220801943718
 
45.  Hew KF, Cheung WS. Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educ Res Rev. 2014;12:45-58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001
 
46.  Al Rawashdeh AZ, Mohammed EY, Al Arab AR, Alara M, Al-Rawashdeh B. Advantages and disadvantages of using e-learning in university education: Analyzing students’ perspectives. Electron J E-learning. 2021;19(3):107-17.
https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.19.3.2168
 
47.  Xing X, Saghaian S. Learning outcomes of a hybrid online virtual classroom and in- person traditional classroom during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability. 2022;14(9):5263.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095263
 
48.  Gilbert RJ. E-books: A tale of digital disruption. J Econ Perspect. 2015;29(3):165-84.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.165
 
49.  Maity S, Sahu TN, Sen N. Panoramic view of digital education in COVID‐19: A new explored avenue. Rev Educ. 2021;9(2):405-23.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3250
 
50.  Ghosh K. Impact of diksha app as an electronic resource in English language teaching learning process in different Kendriya Vidyalayas’ of India. J Phys Conf Series. 2022;2286(1):012019.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2286/1/012019
 
51.  Khan A. ICT and Digital Revolution: Implications for Teacher Education. In Teaching and Teacher Education in India: Perspectives, Concerns and Trends. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023. pp. 299-321.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4985-4_17
 
52.  Ochieng VO, Waithanji Ngware M. Adoption of education technologies for learning during COVID-19 pandemic: The experiences of marginalized and vulnerable learner populations in Kenya. Int J Educ Reform. 2023;32(4):464-87.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879221076081
 
53.  Mathrani A, Sarvesh T, Umer R. Digital divide framework: Online learning in developing countries during the COVID-19 lockdown. Global Soc Educ. 2022;20(5):625-40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1981253
 
54.  Park S, Weng W. The relationship between ICT-related factors and student academic achievement and the moderating effect of country economic index across 39 countries. Educ Technol Soc. 2020;23(3):1-5.
 
55.  Pradhan RP, Arvin MB, Nair M, Hall JH, Bennett SE. Institutional development in an information-driven economy: Can ICTs enhance economic growth for low-and lower middle-income countries? Inform Technol Develop. 2022;28(3):468-87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2022.2051417
 
56.  Cruz C. From digital disparity to educational excellence: Closing the opportunity and achievement gaps for low-income, Black and Latinx students. Harv Latinx L Rev. 2021;24:33.
 
57.  Okoye K, Hussein H, Arrona-Palacios A, Quintero HN, Ortega LO, Sanchez AL, et al. Impact of digital technologies upon teaching and learning in higher education in Latin America: An outlook on the reach, barriers, and bottlenecks. Educ Inform Technol. 2023;28(2):2291-360.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11214-1
 
58.  Liu J. Bridging digital divide amidst educational change for socially inclusive learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sage Open. 2021;11(4):21582440211060810.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211060810
 
59.  Alqahtani AY, Rajkhan AA. E-learning critical success factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial perspectives. Educ Sci. 2020;10(9):216.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090216
 
60.  Allen IE, Seaman J. Digital Compass Learning: Distance Education Enrollment Report 2017. Babson Survey Research Group. 2017.
 
61.  Bates T, Cobo C, Mariño O, Wheeler S. Can artificial intelligence transform higher education? Int J Educat Technol High Educ. 2020;17:1-2.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00218-x
 
62.  Kizilcec RF, Reich J, Yeomans M, Dann C, Brunskill E, Lopez G, et al. Scaling up behavioral science interventions in online education. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2020 30;117(26):14900-5.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921417117

Cite this article as:
Shah SS. The Economics of Education: Evaluating the Impact of Digital Learning Platforms. Premier Journal of Computer Science 2024:1;100001

Export to EndNote Export to Mendeley