Design A Website for Learning Internet-Of-Things Programming by Integrating Design Thinking Elements

Industry 4.0 is crucial in the industrial revolution, specifically focusing on interconnectivity, automation, machine learning, and real-time data. In this context, the Internet of Things (IoT) is critical, especially in smart environments, where machines are equipped with sensors and interconnected through web-enabled devices. Hence, individuals in this industry must constantly update their knowledge of IoT programming. Online learning is a flexible approach that allows learners to learn at their own pace and access courses from anywhere. However, existing educational websites for learning IoT programming are hindered by the lack of effective application of instructional design principles. Despite the importance of design thinking, there remains a paucity of evidence that educational websites incorporate critical components of effective learning paradigms. Additionally, these websites do not effectively integrate usability principles to make them easy to use and more pleasant. This study aimed to develop an educational website for learning IoT programming by integrating design thinking principles and the ADDIE model. The study uses a qualitative and quantitative approach in three phases to provide more significant insights. The iterative development process for design principles involves empathise, problem definition, ideating, prototyping, and testing. Meanwhile, the ADDIE model stages include analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. Data were collected from ten learners through a semi-structured interview at the initial stage to identify problems with existing educational websites. Themes and sub-themes were developed from the interview responses using a thematic analysis. The findings were entered into an empathy map, and proposed solutions were used to develop the prototype. In the evaluation/testing stage, the prototype was evaluated by twenty-nine respondents to identify areas of improvement. The study findings were used to make recommendations to improve the prototype to enhance user experience, engagement, and effectiveness in learning IoT programming. The evidence from this study suggests that educational websites should optimize load times, improve mobile accessibility, enhance feedback mechanisms, provide real-time user support, and implement customization features.

Industri 4.0 adalah penting dalam revolusi perindustrian

1. Akbar, M. A., & Rashid, M. M. (2018, September). Technology based learning system in internet of things (iot) education. In 2018 7th International Conference on Computer and Communication Engineering (ICCCE) (pp. 192-197). IEEE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ananda, Y. F., Irfan, D., & Huda, A. (2024). Meta-analysis: Effectiveness of Web-Based Learning Media in Education. Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai, 8(2), 20319-20329. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Anshari, M., Almunawar, M. N., Shahrill, M., Wicaksono, D. K., & Huda, M. (2017). Smartphones usage in the classrooms: Learning aid or interference?. Education and Information technologies, 22, 3063-3079. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Astuti, L., Wihardi, Y., & Rochintaniawati, D. (2020). The Development of Web-Based Learning Using Interactive Media for Science Learning on Levers in Human Body Topic. Journal of Science Learning, 3(2), 89-98. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Atkinson, P. (2007) Ethnography: Principles in practice. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Avcu, Y. E., & Er, K. O. (2020). Design thinking applications in teaching programming to gifted students. Journal of Educational Tec hnology and Online Learning, 3(1), 1-30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Avcu, Y. E., & Er, K. O. (2020). Design thinking applications in teaching programming to gifted students. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 3(1), 1-30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Azizan, S. A. and Abu Shamsi, N. (2022) ‘Design-Based Learning as a Pedagogical Approach in an Online Learning Environment for Science Undergraduate Students’, in Frontiers in Education. Frontiers, p. 860097. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Beligatamulla, G. (2021). Design thinking pedagogy: A phenomenographic study of design thinking teaching in the higher education context (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Berezina, K., Mahdavi, R., & Talebi, M. (2024, January). Applying Design Thinking to Improve Students’ Experience in Online Hospitality Courses. In ENTER e-Tourism Conference (pp. 87-99). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Berge, Z. L. (2000). Components of the online classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(84), 23-28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bhandari, U., Chang, K., & Neben, T. (2019). Understanding the impact of perceived visual aesthetics on user evaluations: An emotional perspective. Information & management, 56(1), 85-93. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021) ‘One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?’, Qualitative research in psychology. Taylor & Francis, 18(3), pp. 328–352. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Brinkmann, S. and Kvale, S. (2018) Doing interviews. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Cao, L., Mohan, K., Xu, P., & Ramesh, B. (2009). A framework for adapting agile development methodologies. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(4), 332-343. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design thinking: The concept in idea and enactment. Creativity and innovation management, 25(1), 38-57. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Caspersen, M. E., & Bennedsen, J. (2007, September). Instructional design of a programming course: a learning theoretic approach. In Proceedings of the third international workshop on Computing education research (pp. 111-122). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Charmaz, K. and Belgrave, L. (2012) ‘Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis’, The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft, 2, pp. 347–365. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Chen, L., Nugent, C. D., & Wang, H. (2011). A knowledge-driven approach to activity recognition in smart homes. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 24(6), 961-974. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Chevalier, A., Dommes, A., & Marquié, J. C. (2015). Strategy and accuracy during information search on the Web: Effects of age and complexity of the search questions. Computers in human behavior, 53, 305-315. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Cook, D. A., & Dupras, D. M. (2004). A practical guide to developing effective web-based learning. Journal of general internal medicine, 19, 698-707. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Corrales-Estrada, M. (2020). Design thinkers’ profiles and design thinking solutions. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administracion, 33(1), 9-24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Costley, J., Hughes, C., & Lange, C. (2017). The effects of instructional design on student engagement with video lectures at cyber universities. Journal of Information Technology Education, 16(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Dam, R. F., & Siang, T. Y. (2021). Interaction Design Foundation. What is design thinking and why is it so popular?. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Dogan, B., & Dikbıyık, E. (2016). OPCOMITS: Developing an adaptive and intelligent web-based educational system based on the concept map model. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 24(5), 676-691. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Dogan, B., & Dikbıyık, E. (2016). OPCOMITS: Developing an adaptive and intelligent web-based educational system based on the concept map model. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 24(5), 676-691. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Douglas, J. D. (1976) Investigative social research: Individual and team field research. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Duran, R. (2018, August). Towards an instructional design of complex learning in introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 262-263). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Farhan, M., Jabbar, S., Aslam, M., Hammoudeh, M., Ahmad, M., Khalid, S., ... & Han, K. (2018). IoT-based students interaction framework using attention-scoring assessment in eLearning. Future Generation Computer Systems, 79, 909-919. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ferreira Martins, H., Carvalho de Oliveira Junior, A., Dias Canedo, E., Dias Kosloski, R. A., Ávila Paldês, R., & Costa Oliveira, E. (2019). Design thinking: Challenges for software requirements elicitation. Information, 10(12), 371. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Firmenich, S., Garrido, A., Grigera, J., Rivero, J. M., & Rossi, G. (2019). Usability improvement through A/B testing and refactoring. Software Quality Journal, 27, 203-240. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., Keller, J. M., & Russell, J. D. (2005). Principles of instructional design. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Genareo, V. R., & Lyons, R. (2015). Problem-based learning: six steps to design, implement, and assess. Faculty Focus, 30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Gikandi, J. W., & Morrow, D. (2016). Designing and implementing peer formative feedback within online learning environments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(2), 153-170. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Guney, Z. (2019). Four-Component Instructional Design (4C/ID) Model Approach for Teaching Programming Skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(4), 142-156. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Hassenzahl, M. (2018). A personal journey through user experience. Journal of Usability Studies, 13(4), 168-176. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. He, J. S., Ji, S., & Bobbie, P. O. (2017, April). Internet of things (iot)-based learning framework to facilitate stem undergraduate education. In Proceedings of the SouthEast Conference (pp. 88-94). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Hung, W. (2019). Problem design in PBL. The Wiley Handbook of problem‐based learning, 249-272. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Isman, A. (2011). Instructional Design in Education: New Model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(1), 136-142. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Jamal, T., Kircher, J., & Donaldson, J. P. (2021). Re-visiting design thinking for learning and practice: Critical pedagogy, conative empathy. Sustainability, 13(2), 964 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Kaklauskas, A., & Kaklauskas, A. (2015). Intelligent decision support systems. Biometric and intelligent decision making support, 31-85. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Kankanamlage, B. G., Rieger, J., Franz, J., & Strickfaden, M. (2019). Making pedagogic sense of design thinking in the higher educa tion context. Open Education Studies, 1(1), 91-105. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Kim, Y. J. (2017). Challenges and lessons: Embracing design thinking practices for website innovation in South Korea. IASDR. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Kim, Y. J. (2020). Adopting design thinking for website innovation: Case studies of Korean award winners. Science of Emotion and Sensibility, 23(1), 57-68. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. King, A. (2021). Programming the Internet of Things. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.". [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Kumar, A., Krishnamurthi, R., Bhatia, S., Kaushik, K., Ahuja, N. J., Nayyar, A., & Masud, M. (2021). Blended learning tools and practices: A comprehensive analysis. Ieee Access, 9, 85151-85197. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Kuo, T. M., Tsai, C. C., & Wang, J. C. (2021). Linking web-based learning self-efficacy and learning engagement in MOOCs: The role of online academic hardiness. The Internet and Higher Education, 51, 100819. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Laghari, A. A., Wu, K., Laghari, R. A., Ali, M., & Khan, A. A. (2021). A review and state of art of Internet of Things (IoT). Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 1-19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Lai, C. F., Zhong, H. X., & Chiu, P. S. (2021). Investigating the impact of a flipped programming course using the DT-CDIO approach. Computers & Education, 173, 104287. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Leong, Y. M., & Letchumanan, C. (2019r). Effective learning in higher education in Malaysia by implementing internet of things related tools in teaching and introducing IoT courses in curriculum. In 2019 1st International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Data Sciences (AiDAS) (pp. 152-157). IEEE [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Li, K. C., & Wong, B. T. M. (2023). Features and trends of personalised learning: A review of journal publications from 2001 to 2018. Personalized Learning, 4-17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Liang, C., Wang, G., Li, N., Wang, Z., Zeng, W., Xiao, F. A., ... & Li, Y. (2024). Accelerating page loads via streamlining JavaScript engine for distributed learning. Information Sciences, 675, 120713. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Liedtka, J. (2018). Why design thinking works. Harvard Business Review, 96(5), 72-79. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Major, L., Francis, G. A., & Tsapali, M. (2021). The effectiveness of technology‐supported personalised learning in low‐and middle‐income countries: A meta‐analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 1935-1964. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Markey, K. (2019). Online searching: A guide to finding quality information efficiently and effectively. Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Mehdipour, Y., & Zerehkafi, H. (2013). Mobile learning for education: Benefits and challenges. International Journal of Computational Engineerin [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. McKimm, J., Jollie, C., & Cantillon, P. (2003). Web based learning. Bmj, 326(7394), 870-873. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Mjelde, E., & Opdahl, A. L. (2017). Load-time reduction techniques for device-agnostic web sites. Journal of Web Engineering, 311-346. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Moczarny, I. M., De Villiers, M. R., & Van Biljon, J. A. (2012, October). How can usability contribute to user experience? A study in the domain of e-commerce. In Proceedings of the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference (pp. 216-225). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Mohamed, A. A., Cheruiyot, W. K., Rimiru, R., & Ondago, C. (2014). Responsive web design inFluid grid concept literature survey. The International Journal Of Engineering And Science (IJES), 3(7). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. J., Morrison, J. R., & Kalman, H. K. (2019). Designing effective instruction. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Muñoz, J. L. R., Ojeda, F. M., Jurado, D. L. A., Peña, P. F. P., Carranza, C. P. M., Berríos, H. Q., ... & Vasquez-Pauca, M. J. (2022). Systematic review of adaptive learning technology for learning in higher education. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 98(98), 221-233. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Munir, A., Kansakar, P., & Khan, S. U. (2017). IFCIoT: Integrated Fog Cloud IoT: A novel architectural paradigm for the future Internet of Things. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 6(3), 74-82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Muthuprasad, T., Aiswarya, S., Aditya, K. S., & Jha, G. K. (2021). Students’ perception and preference for online education in India during COVID-19 pandemic. Social sciences & humanities open, 3(1), 100101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Nadiyah, R. S., & Faaizah, S. (2015). The development of online project based collaborative learning using ADDIE model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1803-1812. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K. (1993, May). A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In Proceedings of the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 206-213). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Novak, E., & Mulvey, B. K. (2021). Enhancing design thinking in instructional technology students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 80-90. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. NST (2019). https://www.nst.com.my/education/2019/10/526409/are-our-students-ready-ir40-workplace. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Oduoza, C. K. (2010). Decision support system based on effective knowledge management framework to process customer order enquiry. Decision Support Systems, 406. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Pande, M., & Bharathi, S. V. (2020). Theoretical foundations of design thinking–A constructivism learning approach to design thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100637. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Petersen, A. K., & Gundersen, P. (2019). Challenges in Designing Personalised Learning Paths in SPOCs. Designs For Learning, 11(1), 72-79. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Poleac, D. (2022, May). Responsive Design Thinking: Transitioning from Human-Centered to a Planetary-Centric Approach to Innovation. Principles and Perspectives. In International Conference on Modern Trends in Business Hospitality and Tourism (pp. 1-13). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Proskura, S. L., & Lytvynova, S. H. (2020). The approaches to Web-based education of computer science bachelors in higher education institutions. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Purwanto, E. S., Jap, E. B., Wijaya, E. S., Juwanda, R., & Sari, A. C. (2022, October). Application of design thinking in the creation of ui/ux on e-learning websites. In 2022 4th International Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent System (ICORIS) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Puspitasari, N. B., Aulia, Y., & Rosyada, Z. F. (2023). Usability evaluation of online transportation using Nielsen model. World Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology and Sciences, 10(2), 001-009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Razali, N. H., Ali, N. N. N., Safiyuddin, S. K., & Khalid, F. (2022). Design thinking approaches in education and their challenges: A systematic literature review. Creative Education, 13(7), 2289-2299. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking, and why is it important? Review of educational research, 82(3), 330-348. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Robson, C. and McCartan, K. (2016) Real world research: a resource for users of social research methods in applied settings. Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Roth, R. E., Çöltekin, A., Delazari, L., Denney, B., Mendonça, A., Ricker, B. A., ... & Wu, M. (2024). Making maps & visualizations for mobile devices: A research agenda for mobile-first and responsive cartographic design. Journal of Location Based Services, 1-71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Roumeliotis, K. I., Tselikas, N. D., & Tryfonopoulos, C. (2022). Greek hotels’ web traffic: A comparative study based on search engine optimization techniques and technologies. Digital, 2(3), 379-400. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Roy Choudhary, S. (2014, May). Cross-platform testing and maintenance of web and mobile applications. In Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 642-645). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Sabag, N., & Kosolapov, S. (2012). Using Instant Feedback System and Micro Exams to Enhance Active Learning. American Journal of Engineering Education, 3(2), 115-122. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Saldaña, J. (2021) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Sancar-Tokmak, H., & Dogusoy, B. (2023). Novices’ instructional design problem-solving processes: Second Life as a problem-based learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(1), 562-575. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Sandars, J., & Goh, P. S. (2020). Design thinking in medical education: the key features and practical application. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 7, 2382120520926518. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Sharifov, M., & Mustafa, A. S. (2020). Review of Prevailing Trends, Barriers and Future Perspectives of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in Higher Institutions. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 10(3), 166. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Shé, C. N., Farrell, O., Brunton, J., & Costello, E. (2022). Integrating design thinking into instructional design: The# OpenTeach case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 33-52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Skalka, J., Drlik, M., Benko, L., Kapusta, J., Rodriguez del Pino, J. C., Smyrnova-Trybulska, E., ... & Turcinek, P. (2021). Conceptual framework for programming skills development based on microlearning and automated source code evaluation in virtual learning environment. Sustainability, 13(6), 3293. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Soussi, K. (2020). Web-based learning: Characteristics, practices, challenges, and recommendations. International Journal of Science and Research, 9(3), 936-943. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. Spatioti, A. G., Kazanidis, I., & Pange, J. (2022). A comparative study of the ADDIE instructional design model in distance education. Information, 13(9), 402. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. Suratno, B., & Shafira, J. (2022). Development of User Interface/User Experience using Design Thinking Approach for GMS Service Company. Journal of Information Systems and Informatics, 4(2), 469-494. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. Sweller, J. (2021). Instructional design. In Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (pp. 4159-4163). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. Taqwa, T., & Raupu, S. (2022). Website-Based Academic Service Development with ADDIE Design in Higher Education. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 14(2), 1511-1526. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. Tsaramirsis, G., Kantaros, A., Al-Darraji, I., Piromalis, D., Apostolopoulos, C., Pavlopoulou, A., ... & Khan, F. Q. (2022). A modern approach towards an industry 4.0 model: From driving technologies to management. Journal of Sensors, 2022(1), 5023011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. Tschimmel, K. (2012). Design Thinking as an effective Toolkit for Innovation. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (p.1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

96. Tung, F. W. (2021). Rediscovering herb lane: application of design thinking to enhance visitor experience in a traditional market. Sustainability, 13(7), 4033. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

97. Vakali, A., & Pallis, G. (2003). Content delivery networks: Status and trends. IEEE Internet Computing, 7(6), 68-74. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

98. Walford, G. (2009) ‘The practice of writing ethnographic fieldnotes’, Ethnography and Education. Taylor & Francis, 4(2), pp. 117–130. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

99. Walsham, G. (1995) ‘Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method’, European Journal of information systems. Springer, 4, pp. 74–81. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

100. Widjaja, W., & Takahashi, M. (2016). Distributed interface for group affinity-diagram brainstorming. Concurrent Engineering, 24(4), 344-358. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

101. Wilson, C. (2009). User experience re-mastered: your guide to getting the right design. Morgan Kaufmann. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

102. Wolniak, R. (2017). The Design Thinking method and its stages. Systemy wspomagania w inżynierii produkcji, 6(6), 247-255. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

103. Wong, G. K. W., & Yang, M. (2017). Using ICT to facilitate instant and asynchronous feedback for students’ learning engagement and improvements. Emerging practices in scholarship of learning and teaching in a digital era, 289-309. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

104. Xie, J., & Rice, M. F. (2021). Instructional designers’ roles in emergency remote teaching during COVID-19. Distance Education, 42(1), 70-87. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

105. Yesa, C. L., Putri, N. A., & Noer, D. S. (2024). Designing an Academic Website User Interface Using the Design Thinking Method. JISIP (Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Pendidikan), 8(2), 1243-1252. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

106. Yin, R. K. (2009) Case study research: Design and methods. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

107. Zhang, M., Hou, G., & Chen, Y. C. (2023). Effects of interface layout design on mobile learning efficiency: a comparison of interface layouts for mobile learning platform. Library hi tech, 41(5), 1420-1435. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar