Modelling education equality through online platform adoption: Insights into the digital divide, fairness, perceived ease of use, and usefulness

Songyu  Jiang; Hao  Zhu; Hao  Li; Ruiming  Li

doi:10.59400/fes1569

Modelling education equality through online platform adoption: Insights into the digital divide, fairness, perceived ease of use, and usefulness

Songyu Jiang Rattanakosin International College of Creative Entrepreneurship, Rajamangala University of Technology Rattanakosin, Nakhon Pathom 73101, Thailand
Hao Zhu School of Foreign Languages, Sichuan University Jinjiang College, Meishan 620860, China
Hao Li Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Ruiming Li Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand

Article ID: 1569

51 Views, 26 PDF Downloads

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/fes1569

Keywords: education equality; online platform adoption; Chinese higher education institution; grounded theory; digital divide; fairness in education; perceived ease of use; perceived ease of usefulness

Abstract

Online education platforms are pivotal in achieving educational equity. This study employs grounded theory to examine the factors influencing the adoption of online education platforms by students and educators in Chinese higher education institutions. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 30 participants, including 15 students and 15 educators, to provide a detailed qualitative analysis. The findings identify critical factors affecting platform adoption, including digital accessibility and infrastructure, user experience and interface design, adoption and integration challenges, and the impact on educational outcomes and equity. Significant disparities in digital access, especially between urban and rural areas, underscore the need for enhanced digital infrastructure to ensure equitable access to online education. The usability of the platforms, facilitated by user-friendly interfaces and comprehensive training, emerged as essential for engaging students and educators effectively. The study also highlights technological challenges and a lack of digital literacy as significant barriers, necessitating targeted interventions like digital literacy programs and robust technical support.

References

[1]Jiang L. Factors influencing EFL teachers’ implementation of SPOC-based blended learning in higher vocational colleges in China: A study based on grounded theory. Interactive Learning Environments. 2022; 32(3): 859-878. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2100428

[2]Pu R, Jiang S, Dong RK, et al. Toward a knowledge economy: Factors affecting the sustainable consumption behavior in the Chinese online education industry. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022; 13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1007230

[3]Gadi NH. Exploring the Relevance of Appropriate Training in Digital Education for Women’s Employment in Saudi Arabia. Open Journal of Business and Management. 2021; 09(06): 2988-3010. doi: 10.4236/ojbm.2021.96167

[4]Kerras H, Sánchez-Navarro JL, López-Becerra EI, et al. The Impact of the Gender Digital Divide on Sustainable Development: Comparative Analysis between the European Union and the Maghreb. Sustainability. 2020; 12(8): 3347. doi: 10.3390/su12083347

[5]Huda M. Between accessibility and adaptability of digital platform: investigating learners’ perspectives on digital learning infrastructure. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. 2023. doi: 10.1108/heswbl-03-2022-0069

[6]Omwami EM, Gambino A, Wright J. Pedagogical Practices in the Context of the Global COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications for Inclusive Quality Education for All. Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2021. 2022; 163-180. doi: 10.1108/s1479-36792022000042b009

[7]De Giuseppe T, Ianniello A, Corona F. The Transformativity of the Flipped Inclusion Model, between Anthropocentric Ergonomics of Social Capital, and Ecological-Systemic Empowerment. Information. 2020; 11(8): 398. doi: 10.3390/info11080398

[8]Ramírez-Montoya MS, Andrade-Vargas L, Rivera-Rogel D, et al. Trends for the Future of Education Programs for Professional Development. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13): 7244. doi: 10.3390/su13137244

[9]Qushem UB, Christopoulos A, Oyelere SS, et al. Multimodal Technologies in Precision Education: Providing New Opportunities or Adding More Challenges? Education Sciences. 2021; 11(7): 338. doi: 10.3390/educsci11070338

[10]Song Z, Wang C, Bergmann L. China’s prefectural digital divide: Spatial analysis and multivariate determinants of ICT diffusion. International Journal of Information Management. 2020; 52: 102072. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102072

[11]Mughal Awan MZ, Awan SA. Digital Empowerment: Advancing Women’s Economic Status in Developing Countries. Journal of Global Peace and Security Studies (JGPSS). 2023; 4(2).

[12]Li M. Exploring the digital divide in primary education: A comparative study of urban and rural mathematics teachers’ TPACK and attitudes towards technology integration in post-pandemic China. Education and Information Technologies. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12890-x

[13]Foong YP, Pidani R, Sithira Vadivel V, et al. Singapore Smart Nation: Journey into a New Digital Landscape for Higher Education. In: Kwok AOJ, The PL. (editors). Emerging Technologies in Business: Innovation Strategies for Competitive Advantage. Springer Nature Singapore; 2024.

[14]Clark AE, Nong H, Zhu H, et al. Compensating for academic loss: Online learning and student performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. China Economic Review. 2021; 68: 101629. doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2021.101629

[15]Ndibalema P. Constraints of transition to online distance learning in Higher Education Institutions during COVID-19 in developing countries: A systematic review. E-Learning and Digital Media. 2022; 19(6): 595-618. doi: 10.1177/20427530221107510

[16]Dai Z, Zhang Q, Zhu X, et al. A Comparative Study of Chinese and Foreign Research on the Internet of Things in Education: Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization. IEEE Access. 2021; 9: 130127-130140. doi: 10.1109/access.2021.3113805

[17]Glazewski KD, Ertmer PA. Fostering complex problem solving for diverse learners: engaging an ethos of intentionality toward equitable access. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2020; 68(2): 679-702. doi: 10.1007/s11423-020-09762-9

[18]Hampton KN, Robertson CT, Fernandez L, et al. How variation in internet access, digital skills, and media use are related to rural student outcomes: GPA, SAT, and educational aspirations. Telematics and Informatics. 2021; 63: 101666. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2021.101666

[19]Luo C, Li S, Sicular T. The long-term evolution of national income inequality and rural poverty in China. China Economic Review. 2020; 62: 101465. doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2020.101465

[20]Al-Adwan AS. Investigating the drivers and barriers to MOOCs adoption: The perspective of TAM. Education and Information Technologies. 2020; 25(6): 5771-5795. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10250-z

[21]Cheah YH, Oliveri AR, Hughes JE. Unpacking K-12 teachers’ technology-supported, equitable practices: A mixed-methods systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2023; 125: 103984. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103984

[22]Núñez-Canal M, de Obesso M de las M, Pérez-Rivero CA. New challenges in higher education: A study of the digital competence of educators in Covid times. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2022; 174: 121270. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121270

[23]Castañeda L, Williamson B. Assembling New Toolboxes of Methods and Theories for Innovative Critical Research on Educational Technology. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research. 2021; 10(1): 1-14. doi: 10.7821/naer.2021.1.703

[24]Decuypere M, Grimaldi E, Landri P. Introduction: Critical studies of digital education platforms. Critical Studies in Education. 2021; 62(1): 1-16. doi: 10.1080/17508487.2020.1866050

[25]Ben Youssef A, Dahmani M, Ragni L. ICT Use, Digital Skills and Students’ Academic Performance: Exploring the Digital Divide. Information. 2022; 13(3): 129. doi: 10.3390/info13030129

[26]Apkarian N, Voigt M, Hagman JE, et al. Critical, Intersectional, Quantitative Analyses of Instructional Practices and Changes in Undergraduate Students’ Math Affect. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s40753-024-00242-6

[27]Alajmi M. Promoting equity and equality in student learning: principals as social justice leaders in Kuwaiti schools. International Journal of Educational Management. 2024. doi: 10.1108/ijem-12-2023-0651

[28]Meyer MS, Shen Y, Plucker JA. Reducing Excellence Gaps: A Systematic Review of Research on Equity in Advanced Education. Review of Educational Research. 2023; 94(1): 33-72. doi: 10.3102/00346543221148461

[29]Wu J. E-Learning Management Systems in Higher Education: Features of the Application at a Chinese vs. European University. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s13132-024-02159-6

[30]Liu M, Yu D. Towards intelligent E-learning systems. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 28(7): 7845-7876. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11479-6

[31]O’Flynn E, Ahmed A, Biswas A, et al. E-learning Supporting Surgical Training in Low-Resource Settings. Current Surgery Reports. 2024; 12(6): 151-159. doi: 10.1007/s40137-024-00399-8

[32]Weerasena A, Jayathilaka R. Is the best option still in low adoption? An investigation on factors affecting the adoption of online school education in rural areas in Sri Lanka. Educational technology research and development. 2023; 71(3): 1371-1390. doi: 10.1007/s11423-023-10201-8

[33]Ossiannilsson E. Open Educational Resources: A Catalyst for Social Justice and Equality. In: Olivier J, Rambow A. (editors). Open Educational Resources in Higher Education: A Global Perspective. Springer Nature Singapore; 2023.

[34]Kulal A, Dinesh S, Abhishek N, et al. Digital access and learning outcomes: a study of equity and inclusivity in distance education. International Journal of Educational Management. 2024; 38(5): 1391-1423. doi: 10.1108/ijem-03-2024-0166

[35]Ren X. Investigating the Experiences of Online Instructors while engaging and empowering non-traditional learners in eCampus. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 28(1): 237-253. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11153-x

[36]Ofosu-Asare Y. Developing classroom ICT teaching techniques, principles and practice for teachers in rural Ghana without access to computers or internet: a framework based on literature review. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology. 2024; 41(3): 262-279. doi: 10.1108/ijilt-04-2023-0045

[37]Getenet S, Haeusler C, Redmond P, et al. First-year Preservice Teachers’ Understanding of Digital Technologies and Their Digital Literacy, Efficacy, Attitude, and Online Learning Engagement: Implication for Course Design. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. 2024; 29(3): 1359-1383. doi: 10.1007/s10758-023-09724-z

[38]Hussain H, Wen J, Jiang R, et al. Analyzing the role of ICT in bridging the digital divide: a transitional analytical framework for ICT access to impact. Library Hi Tech; 2023. doi: 10.1108/lht-06-2021-0194

[39]Quansah EM. Digital divide: accessing digital technologies for firms in BOP countries. Online Information Review. 2023; 48(3): 476-490. doi: 10.1108/oir-05-2023-0213

[40]Ochieng VO, Asego CS, Gyasi RM. The place of academia and industry in the adoption and adaptation of educational technologies for a post-COVID-19 recovery in Africa. Scientific African. 2023; 20: e01658. doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01658

[41]Główczewski M, Burdziej S. (In)justice in academia: procedural fairness, students’ academic identification, and perceived legitimacy of university authorities. Higher Education. 2022; 86(1): 163-184. doi: 10.1007/s10734-022-00907-8

[42]Le H, Rew L. Youth-centered Recommendations to Address Social Stigma and Discrimination Against Unhoused Youth: An Integrative Literature Review. The Journal of School Nursing. 2023. doi: 10.1177/10598405231214061

[43]Cheah YH, Oliveri AR, Hughes JE. Unpacking K-12 teachers’ technology-supported, equitable practices: A mixed-methods systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2023; 125: 103984. doi: 10.1016/j.ta

[44]Latreche H, Bellahcene M, Dutot V. Does IT culture archetypes affect the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of e-banking services? A multistage approach of Algerian customers. International Journal of Bank Marketing. 2024. doi: 10.1108/ijbm-02-2023-0100

[45]Luo Z. Determinants of the perceived usefulness (PU) in the context of using gamification for classroom-based ESL teaching: A scale development study. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 28(4): 4741-4768. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11409-6

[46]Saif N, Khan SU, Shaheen I, et al. Chat-GPT; validating Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in education sector via ubiquitous learning mechanism. Computers in Human Behavior. 2024; 154: 108097. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.108097

[47]Ullah MS, Hoque MdR, Aziz MA, et al. Analyzing students’ e-learning usage and post-usage outcomes in higher education. Computers and Education Open. 2023; 5: 100146. doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100146

[48]He S, Jiang S, Zhu R, et al. The influence of educational and emotional support on e-learning acceptance: An integration of social support theory and TAM. Education and Information Technologies. 2023; 28(9): 11145-11165. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-11648-1

[49]Aziz N, Memon SA, Anjum S. Perception of Students and Teachers Regarding Online Teaching of English Language: A Case of Secondary School Hyderabad—Pakistan. Academy of Education and Social Sciences Review. 2023; 3(2): 163-171. doi: 10.48112/aessr.v3i2.495

[50]Amponsah S, Bekele TA. Exploring strategies for including visually impaired students in online learning. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 28(8): 9355-9377. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11145-x

[51]Glaser BG, Strauss AL, Strutzel E. The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research. Nursing Research. 1968; 17(4): 364. doi: 10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014

[52]Mullens AM, Hoffman B. The Affordability Solution: A Systematic Review of Open Educational Resources. Educational Psychology Review. 2023; 35(3). doi: 10.1007/s10648-023-09793-7

[53]Sovacool BK, Iskandarova M, Hall J. Industrializing theories: A thematic analysis of conceptual frameworks and typologies for industrial sociotechnical change in a low-carbon future. Energy Research & Social Science. 2023; 97: 102954. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2023.102954

[54]Ghourchian P. Online Education Development in Iran During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Opportunities and Challenges. In: Puiu S, Idowu SO. (editors). Online Education During COVID-19 and Beyond: Opportunities, Challenges and Outlook. Springer Nature Switzerland; 2024.

[55]Komatsu T. Respecting Equity, Inclusiveness, and Fairness. In: Komatsu T. (editor). Education and Social Cohesion in a Post-conflict and Divided Nation: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Springer Nature Singapore; 2024.

[56]Benaida M. Developing and extending usability heuristics evaluation for user interface design via AHP. Soft Computing. 2023; 27(14): 9693-9707. doi: 10.1007/s00500-022-07803-4

[57]Takyi-Annan GE, Zhang H. Assessing the impact of overcoming BIM implementation barriers on BIM usage frequency and circular economy in the project lifecycle using Partial least Squares structural Equation modelling (PLS-SEM) analysis. Energy and Buildings. 2023; 295: 113329. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113329

[58]Asamoah MK, Oheneba-Sakyi Y. Factors influencing the willingness, and reluctuance of lecturers to embrace learning management systems in two selected ghanaian universities. E-Learning and Digital Media. 2023; 21(4): 387-405. doi: 10.1177/20427530231156172

[59]Owens M, Ravi V, Hunter E. Digital Inclusion as a Lens for Equitable Parent Engagement. TechTrends. Published online June 5, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s11528-023-00859-5

[60]Hadi Mogavi R, Deng C, Juho Kim J, et al. ChatGPT in education: A blessing or a curse? A qualitative study exploring early adopters’ utilization and perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans. 2024; 2(1): 100027. doi: 10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100027

[61]Etminani-Ghasrodashti R, Kermanshachi S, Rosenberger JM, et al. Exploring motivating factors and constraints of using and adoption of shared autonomous vehicles (SAVs). Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 2023; 18: 100794. doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2023.100794

[62]Stumbrienė D, Jevsikova T, Kontvainė V. Key factors influencing teachers’ motivation to transfer technology-enabled educational innovation. Education and Information Technologies. 2023; 29(2): 1697-1731. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-11891-6

[63]Timotheou S, Miliou O, Dimitriadis Y, et al. Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools’ digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 28(6): 6695-6726. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8

[64]Weisberg L, Dawson K. The Intersection of Equity Pedagogy and Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education: A Scoping Review. Journal of Teacher Education. 2023; 74(4): 327-342. doi: 10.1177/00224871231182129

[65]Golden AR, Srisarajivakul EN, Hasselle AJ, et al. What was a gap is now a chasm: Remote schooling, the digital divide, and educational inequities resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2023; 52: 101632. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101632

[66]Hauer KE, Park YS, Bullock JL, et al. “My Assessments Are Biased!” Measurement and Sociocultural Approaches to Achieve Fairness in Assessment in Medical Education. Academic Medicine. 2023; 98(8S): S16-S27. doi: 10.1097/acm.0000000000005245

[67]Colombo G, Minta K, Grübel J, et al. Detecting cognitive impairment through an age-friendly serious game: The development and usability of the Spatial Performance Assessment for Cognitive Evaluation (SPACE). Computers in Human Behavior. 2024; 160: 108349. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108349

[68]Edem Adzovie D, Jibril AB. Assessment of the effects of Covid-19 pandemic on the prospects of e-learning in higher learning institutions: The mediating role of academic innovativeness and technological growth. Cogent Education. 2022; 9(1). doi: 10.1080/2331186x.2022.2041222

Published

2024-12-17

How to Cite

Jiang , S., Zhu, H., Li, H., & Li, R. (2024). Modelling education equality through online platform adoption: Insights into the digital divide, fairness, perceived ease of use, and usefulness. Forum for Education Studies, 3(1), 1569. https://doi.org/10.59400/fes1569

Download Citation

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2025)

Section

Article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Surapati Pramanik

Nandalal Ghosh B.T. College, India

eISSN

3029-2956

Publication Frequency

Quarterly

About the Publisher

Academic Publishing insists on taking academic exchange and publication as the main line, carrying out comprehensive management based on science and technology, and fully exploring excellent international publishing resources. Within 5 years, it will form a strategic framework and scale with science (S), technology (T), medicine (M), education (E), and humanities and arts (H) as the main publishing fields. Academic Publishing is headquartered in Singapore and based in Malaysia, with the United States and China providing the main scientific and academic resources. At the same time, it has established long-term good cooperative relations with other publishing companies, scientific research communities, and academic organizations in more than a dozen countries and regions. Academic Publishing uses English and Chinese as its main publishing languages, mainly publishing books, journals, and conference papers in print and online. The vast majority of publications follow the international open access policy, providing stable and long-term quality and professional publications. With the joint efforts of the expert team and our professional editorial team, our publications will gradually be indexed by international databases in stages to provide convenient and professional retrieval for various scholars. At the same time, manuscripts we accept will be subject to the peer review principle, and cutting-edge and innovative research articles will be preferentially accepted for peer reference and discussion. All kinds of our publications are welcome for peer to contribute, access, and download.

more

Volume Arrangement

2025

2024

2023

Featured Articles

Diachronic analysis of Spanish scientific production on teaching methodologies in Primary Education: A scientometric and conceptual perspective (2000–2023)

The evaluation of science is essential to ensuring the quality, validity, and reliability of scientific results. Science needs to undergo a review process to ensure the rigorousness of scientific output. This evaluation provides a solid basis for political and economic decisions related to the design and execution of research projects, the establishment of new lines of research, or the identification of areas of specialization. This paper analyses diachronically the Spanish scientific production related to the implementation and development of teaching methodologies in primary education and indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases during the period 2000–2023. This analysis is carried out on the one hand, from a scientometric perspective, based on the analysis of indicators such as diachronic production, the journals with the highest scientific productivity, and the most productive institutions, and, on the other hand, from a conceptual perspective, trying to define its relationship with other areas of education. The general results of this study reveal two clear stages: the first, up to 2010, with little scientific production; and the second, from 2011 onwards, characterised by a general growth. The relationship between this field and others such as initial teacher training, ICT, and didactics is also evident.

The relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools

This study explores the intricate relationship between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools in the Mansehra district of Pakistan. Teacher self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s ability to manage and influence classroom environments effectively, has been identified as a critical factor influencing both teaching performance and student outcomes. The research employed a mixed-method approach, gathering data from 62 teachers and 310 students using both online surveys (via Google Forms) and physical questionnaires to ensure a diverse and inclusive participant pool. Data analysis was conducted using two complementary tools: SPSS and Smart PLS. SPSS was used for descriptive statistics and inferential analyses, such as t-tests, chi-square tests, and measures of central tendency, to offer an overview of group differences and relationships between variables. Meanwhile, Smart PLS was employed for Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), a technique suited for complex models and smaller sample sizes. This method allowed for the analysis of both direct and indirect relationships between the study variables—teacher self-efficacy, teaching practices, and classroom management. The findings reveal a significant positive correlation between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices. Additionally, teaching practices were found to mediate this relationship, indicating that higher levels of self-efficacy not only directly improve classroom management but also enhance teaching performance, which in turn contributes to better-managed classrooms. These results suggest that interventions aimed at enhancing teacher self-efficacy can have far-reaching effects on educational outcomes. The study highlights the need for focused teacher development programs that foster self-efficacy, thereby improving classroom management, student engagement, and overall academic success.

Artificial Intelligence in education: A comprehensive study

This comprehensive study delves into the multifaceted role of AI in education, exploring its applications, benefits, challenges, and future implications. The purpose of the study is to show how AI in education helps educators identify gaps in student knowledge and provide targeted feedback to improve learning outcomes. As a methodology, the library method and the study and review of various documents have been used in this research. The study examines the diverse range of AI technologies employed in educational settings, including intelligent tutoring systems, personalized learning platforms, educational chatbots, and virtual reality simulations. Furthermore, the study delves into the numerous benefits that AI brings to education. It highlights how AI-powered analytics and data-driven insights enable educators to gain deeper insights into student learning patterns, identify areas for improvement, and tailor instructional strategies accordingly. Additionally, AI-driven tools promote inclusivity by providing personalized support to learners with diverse needs and learning styles. Despite its transformative potential, the study also acknowledges the challenges and ethical considerations associated with integrating AI into education. Data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the digital divide are examined in detail, emphasizing the importance of responsible AI deployment and ethical guidelines. Looking ahead, the study explores the future implications of AI in education and the evolving role of educators in AI-enabled classrooms. It discusses how AI technologies will continue to evolve, offering new opportunities for collaborative learning, skill development, and lifelong education. In conclusion, this comprehensive study underscores the profound impact of AI on education and the need for thoughtful implementation strategies that prioritize equity, inclusivity, and ethical considerations. By harnessing the potential of AI, education systems can better prepare learners for the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Enhancing adult learner success in higher education through decision tree models: A machine learning approach

This article explores the use of machine learning, specifically Classification and Regression Trees (CART), to address the unique challenges faced by adult learners in higher education. These learners confront socio-cultural, economic, and institutional hurdles, such as stereotypes, financial constraints, and systemic inefficiencies. The study utilizes decision tree models to evaluate their effectiveness in predicting graduation outcomes, which helps in formulating tailored educational strategies. The research analyzed a comprehensive dataset spanning the academic years 2013–2014 to 2021–2022, evaluating the predictive accuracy of CART models using precision, recall, and F1 score. Findings indicate that attendance, age, and Pell Grant eligibility are key predictors of academic success, demonstrating the strong capability of the model across various educational metrics. This highlights the potential of machine learning (ML) to improve data-driven decision-making in educational settings. The results affirm the effectiveness of Decision Tree (DT) models in meeting the educational needs of adult learners and underscore the need for institutions to adapt their strategies to provide more inclusive and supportive environments. This study advocates for a shift towards nuanced, data-driven approaches in higher education, emphasizing the development of strategies that address the distinct challenges of adult learners, aiming to enhance inclusivity and support within the sector.