Campus Online Publications through the Eyes of Digitally Disadvantaged Students
This study explored the perceptions of digitally disadvantaged students toward The Blooms online publication and identified recommendations for improvement. It employed a mixed-methods descriptive research design, integrating quantitative data from closed-ended survey items and qualitative insights from open-ended responses. Specifically, the study sought to: (1) describe the demographic profile of student respondents; (2) assess their perceptions of the online publication in terms of usability, visual appeal, correctness, timeliness, and accessibility; and (3) identify suggestions to enhance the publication based on their feedback. A total of 265 students from the School of Arts and Sciences, Aklan State University–Banga Campus, were selected through stratified random sampling. Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, and mean were used for quantitative data, while emergent themes were identified from qualitative responses. Findings revealed that The Blooms Publication was perceived as highly useful (x̄ = 4.6), timely (x̄ = 4.5), and accurate (x̄ = 4.5). It was considered visually appealing (x̄ = 4.4), yet accessibility remained a challenge (x̄ = 2.0) due to digital and connectivity limitations. Thematic analysis of student suggestions highlighted areas for content enrichment, interactivity, improved design, and enhanced communication and accessibility. The study concludes that while the online publication is well-received, targeted improvements, especially addressing accessibility and student engagement, are necessary to meet the needs of digitally disadvantaged learners.
Authors
- Ava Mae Magallanes (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7669-0419)
- Ma. Annie Masigon
- Jonell Gregorio
Publication Details
- Journal
- International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research
- Published
- 2025-04-20
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i02.42242
- Primary Topic
- Web and Library Services
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00