Authors : Rashmi Kumari Rajora; Dr. Renu Yadav

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/cb24j4s9

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26Oct096

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : India’s vocational education and training settings serve learners with varied languages, prior work experiences, and access to digital resources. This proposed protocol describes the planned development and feasibility evaluation of a culturally responsive skill learning device. The device is conceived as a portable, offline-first aid for practical competency modules; it has not yet been built or tested. The protocol does not report study findings. The study will proceed through needs analysis, co-design and prototype development, expert review, usability testing and revision, and a two-group feasibility evaluation. The anticipated sample is approximately 60–80 second-semester B.Voc learners at Central University of Haryana in Biomedical Science, Industrial Waste Management, and Retail and Logistics Management. Hindi and English will be supported. Programme-specific simulated tasks, class availability and allocation will be documented before recruitment. Competency outcomes will be exploratory within programmes and will not be pooled across different tasks. The feasibility study will assess recruitment, retention, delivery, fidelity, acceptability, and data completeness against predefined progression criteria. Practical competency, short-term retention, engagement, skill self-efficacy, and perceived cultural relevance will be examined as exploratory outcomes. Quantitative estimates will be interpreted alongside interviews, observations, learner work, and device usage records. The study will inform refinement of the device and the design of a future evaluation; it is not intended to establish effectiveness or generalisability. Relevant SPIRIT 2025 items and TIDieR will guide reporting, with the CONSORT extension for randomised pilot trials applied if class randomisation is selected.

Keywords : Culturally Responsive Teaching; Vocational Education and Training; India; Skill Learning; Educational Device; Feasibility Protocol; Mixed Methods.

References :

1. Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
2. Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163–206. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582066
3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
5. Chan, A. W., Boutron, I., Hopewell, S., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Collins, G. S., Tunn, R., Aggarwal, R., Berkwits, M., Berlin, J. A., Bhandari, N., Butcher, N. J., Campbell, M. K., Chidebe, R. C. W., Elbourne, D. R., Farmer, A. J., Fergusson, D. A., Golub, R. M., Goodman, S. N., ... Hróbjartsson, A. (2025). SPIRIT 2025 statement: Updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials. BMJ, 389, e081477. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-081477
6. Cheng, M. M., Lacaste, A. V., Saranza, C., & Chuang, H. H. (2021). Culturally responsive teaching in technology supported learning environments in marine education for sustainable development. Sustainability, 13(24), 13922. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413922
7. Chuang, H. H., Shih, C. L., & Cheng, M. M. (2020). Teachers' perceptions of culturally responsive teaching in technology supported learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2442–2460. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12921
8. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
9. Dickson, G. L., Chun, H., & Fernandez, I. T. (2016). The development and initial validation of the Student Measure of Culturally Responsive Teaching. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 41(3), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508415604879
10. Directorate General of Training. (n.d.). Craftsmen Training Scheme (CTS). https://dgt.gov.in/en/CTS
11. Eldridge, S. M., Chan, C. L., Campbell, M. J., Bond, C. M., Hopewell, S., Thabane, L., & Lancaster, G. A. (2016). CONSORT 2010 statement: Extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ, 355, i5239. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5239
12. Franco, M. P., Bottiani, J. H., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2024). Assessing teachers’ culturally responsive classroom practice in PK–12 schools: A systematic review of teacher-, student-, and observer-report measures. Review of Educational Research, 94(5), 743–798. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231208720
13. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
14. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003
15. Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
16. Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., Lamb, S. E., Dixon-Woods, M., McCulloch, P., Wyatt, J. C., Chan, A. W., & Michie, S. (2014). Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ, 348, g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687
17. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
18. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
19. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
20. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–386. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
21. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). Routledge.
22. National Council for Vocational Education and Training. (2023). National Skills Qualification Framework notification. https://ncvet.gov.in/national-skills-qualification-framework/nsqf-notification/
23. Niittylahti, S., Annala, J., & Mäkinen, M. (2023). Student engagement profiles in vocational education and training: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 75(2), 372–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2021.1879902
24. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244
25. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147