Evaluating the impact of NEP 2020 on higher education reforms and skill development in India: a systematic literature review

Abstract

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 represents India's most comprehensive higher education reforms, targeting flexibility, inclusivity and skill development across Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). This systematic literature review analysed 50 peer-reviewed sources from (2020 to 2025) following PRISMA guidelines to evaluate NEP 2020's implementation impact and challenges. Quantitative analysis revealed that 39 of the 50 reviewed studies reported positive outcome in Choice-Based Credit System (CBCS) adoption, while 32/50 documented successful vocational integration initiatives. However, 41 of the 50 studies identified significant implementation barriers including infrastructural gaps, faculty readiness issues (38 issues) and regional disparities (35 studies). Multidisciplinary education programs showed 60% implementation success rate (i.e., 30/50), with research enhancement initiative achieving effectiveness in 22/50 across reviewed institutions. Critical challenges include inadequate funding (identified in 45/50 of studies), digital infrastructure gaps affecting 35/50 rural HEIs, and administrative resistance (reported in 28/50 cases). Conversely, best practices from 15 leading institutions demonstrated scalable models achieving 84% stakeholder satisfaction rates (i.e., in 42/50 cases). Out of 50 studies, all empirical studies (n = 26) appraised with MMAT (2028) were rated as high quality score, reflects that strong methodological across included SLRs. The review establishes that successful NEP 2020 implementation requires: 1) increased funding allocation (minimum 6% GDP as recommended), 2) Comprehensive faculty development programs, 3) technology infrastructure investment and 4) strengthened industry-academia partnerships. These findings provide evidence-based recommendations for policy makers and institutional leaders to accelerate India's higher education transformation toward global competitiveness.

1 Introduction

India has a longstanding history of educational reforms, beginning with the first National Policy on Education (NPE) in 1968, followed by a revised version in 1986 and later modified in 1992. In 2005, the Manmohan Singh government introduced a NEP under the “Common Minimum Programme”, aimed at enhancing accessibility and quality of education. In 2016, the Narendra Modi government proposed a new policy to address key issues such as gender discrimination, the establishment of education tribunals, and the standardization of curricula for Science, Mathematics, and English across the country (Ministry of Education, 2023).

After 34 years, the NEP 2020 was introduced, based on recommendations from an expert committee led by Dr. K. Kasturirangan, former chairman of ISRO. This policy aims “to modernize and globalize India's education system by emphasizing skill development, digital learning, and employability”. It seeks to align the Indian education system with evolving global standards while remaining rooted in the nation's cultural ethos (Ministry of Education, 2020). NEP 2020 marks a transformative shift in higher education by introducing significant reforms in curriculum structure, pedagogy, and governance (Ministry of Education, 2020).

Built on five core pillars - “Access, Equity, Quality, Affordability, and Accountability”, NEP 2020 brings structural changes such as competency-based assessments, digital learning integration, and a multidisciplinary approach to higher education (Ministry of Education, 2020). It promotes flexibility in course structures, the integration of vocational education, and the encouragement of research and innovation. These efforts align India's education system with international standards (Berchin et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2021; Muralidharan and Singh, 2021; Ministry of Education, 2020; Ram, 2021; Shasidharan, 2021; Venkateshwarlu, 2021; Wankhade, 2021).

The policy is closely aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), which aims to provide inclusive and equitable quality education for all. A key objective is to increase the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) to 50% by 2035 (Banerjee et al., 2021; Berchin et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2021; Muralidharan and Singh, 2021; Venkateshwarlu, 2021; Wankhade, 2021). However, the success of NEP 2020 depends on factors such as strong governance, infrastructure development, and addressing socio-economic disparities (Berchin et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2021; Muralidharan and Singh, 2021). The policy aspires to create a knowledge-driven economy by preparing students for the 21st-century job market while fostering regional and socio-economic inclusivity (Banerjee et al., 2021; Berchin et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2021; Muralidharan and Singh, 2021; Venkateshwarlu, 2021; Wankhade, 2021).

A major reform under NEP 2020 is the emphasis on mother tongue-based education, particularly at the primary level, to enhance comprehension and learning outcomes (Kumar et al., 2021). Additionally, the policy introduces the Academic Bank of Credits (ABC) to facilitate academic credit transfers, offering students greater flexibility in their education pathways. Another significant change is the establishment of the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI), which replaces multiple regulatory bodies like the UGC and AICTE, ensuring streamlined governance and improved quality education (Kumar et al., 2021). Despite its ambitious goals, NEP 2020 requires robust governance, significant infrastructure investments, and efforts to bridge digital and socio-economic divides (Muralidharan and Singh, 2021).

Higher education institutions in India are undergoing substantial reforms under NEP 2020, including the restructuring of degree programs, granting universities greater autonomy, and introducing credit-based learning models (National Education Policy, 2020). These reforms aim to bridge the gap between academia and industry by fostering a skill-oriented curriculum, experiential learning, and technology-driven pedagogy. The policy's emphasis on lifelong learning and employability is expected to enhance workforce readiness in a dynamic job market.

The implementation of NEP 2020 has led to notable developments. A key milestone was the launch of the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) for the Foundational Stage (NCF-FS) in October 2022, emphasizing early childhood care and education within the 5 + 3 + 3 + 4 curricular structure (National Council for Educational Research and Training, 2022).

Despite these advancements, challenges persist, including difficulties in adapting to a multidisciplinary approach and the need for structural reforms in recruitment processes. Addressing these concerns is crucial for the full realization of NEP 2020's objectives.

This study conducts a systematic literature review to evaluate the impact of NEP 2020 on higher education reforms and skill development in India. By analysing existing research, policy documents, and empirical studies, this study assesses the below five core dimensions of impact such as curriculum and pedagogical reform, employability and skill outcomes, research and innovation capacity, governance and funding mechanism and inclusivity & digitalisation.

2 Literature review

The integration of NEP 2020 into India's higher education system is both complex and essential. To address the challenges faced by the institutions, it proposes strategic initiatives like workshops and awards to encourage compliance, alignment committees, standardized procedures, feedback systems, and improved communication channels. Strategic planning and capacity building are key for efficient resource use, while reforming norms through cultural training and innovative teaching supports adoption. The roadmap combines institutional theory, innovation diffusion, and policy implementation frameworks, offering a flexible, adaptive strategy. Drawing from global best practices - like regional pedagogy centres, GIA partnerships, and rural digital hubs - it ensures a localized, inclusive approach. This tailored model enables HEIs to overcome implementation barriers and foster innovation, employability, and lifelong learning (Narkhede, 2025).

It is admirable that the NEP 2020 has prominently recognized the challenges faced by children with special needs, historically underrepresented groups, minorities, and gendered groupings. The Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDGs) are groups of people who, because of historical factors and the underlying causes of their current disadvantaged social, economic, educational, vocational, and locational circumstances, are unable to access the same opportunities and resources available for higher education. It has also done a great job of proposing a commendable set of measures, such as education in Special Economic Zones (SEZs), to address the fundamental challenges faced by education in remote areas. We have gained important knowledge about various facets of improving the educational system's equity via the comparison of NEP 2020 with the Nordic educational model. A learner's capacity to realize their full potential is greatly impacted by their access to opportunities for learning and achievement (Raj, 2024).

This study offers a comprehensive analysis of the implementation of the NEP 2020, highlighting the opportunities and challenges associated with this transformative journey. It highlights the importance of having a sophisticated understanding of the wide range of issues encountered, from regional and cultural differences to resource distribution and teacher preparation, and the abundance of opportunities that are present within these challenges, such as the potential for innovative educational approaches, comprehensive development, and international cooperation. The most important lesson is that to effectively address these issues, politicians, educators, and stakeholders must collaborate to develop flexible solutions and foster a culture of continuous improvement. Prioritizing resource allocation, funding teacher preparation, promoting community involvement, and utilizing technology are all important (Priyanka, 2024).

The importance of libraries in education is acknowledged in the NEP 2020 of India. At all educational levels, including schools, teacher preparation programs, and postsecondary educational institutions, it advocates for the establishment of well-stocked libraries. The policy acknowledges that libraries may act as hubs for research and education by giving people access to a variety of materials, such as books, journals, and digital media. A foundation for raising the standard of education in India and preparing students for the challenges of the 21st century is provided by the NEP's library proposals. The government should acknowledge the demands of library employees and ensure that the right people are hired in order to improve library services. India's educational system can be greatly enhanced by the policy's emphasis on offering a comprehensive and interdisciplinary education, universalizing education, flexible and multilingual education, technology-enabled learning, and teacher preparation and professional development (Chaudhari, 2023).

In many respects, the NEP 2020 is exactly what India needs as it develops into the largest workforce in the world in the years to come. It must overcome significant execution obstacles over the next years and decades it needs to fulfil the dreams it embodies. The moment has come for Indian educators to take advantage of this and take control of their own lives. To do this, one must dream and put forth a lot of effort to realize dreams. Develop into a conscious, motivated, and capable practitioner. Exchange ideas and develop through research and experimentation. Gain insights also from the thoughts, beliefs, and experiences of peer-practitioners. Take pleasure in the journey by creating lasting bonds with generations of students who pass through your classes and continue to learn throughout their lives (Nandi, 2023).

The way a policy is implemented determines how effective it is. Such execution will necessitate several efforts and measures, all of which must be coordinated and methodically carried out by various bodies. To guarantee that the policy is implemented in its spirit and intent, through coherence in planning and synergy across all these bodies involved in education, the following bodies will lead the implementation of this policy: MHRD, CABE, Union and State Governments, education-related Ministries, State Departments of Education, Boards, NTA, the regulatory bodies of school and higher education, NCERT, SCERTs, schools, and HEIs. Additionally, there will be timelines and a plan for review (Korada, 2022).

In addition to being academically demanding, the New Education Policy 2020 aims to create an inclusive and socially just educational system. It aims to establish a setting in which each person, irrespective of background, can reach their maximum potential and make a constructive contribution to society. Furthermore, by tackling inequalities and guaranteeing that education is available, inclusive, and equitable for all pupils, NEP 2020 aims to advance social justice. India's educational system seeks to establish a more equitable and just society where education is a means of empowerment and advancement by putting its suggestions into practice (Sharma, 2022).

The goal of the most recent education strategy has been to eradicate disparities in the system, including those related to academics, science, the arts, extracurricular activities, and vocational training. Additionally, it has envisioned a more student-centred system that emphasizes the development of 21st-century skills and conceptual knowledge. Additionally, a change in evaluation patterns (with more formative) is suggested by this innovative strategy. Additionally, its focus on online learning is a fantastic first step in making alternative forms of education more widely accepted (Sahu and Behera, 2022).

In every nation, higher education has a significant role in determining the economy, social standing, acceptance of technology, and appropriate human conduct. The country government's education department is in charge of enhancing GER so that all citizens can take advantage of higher education options. It is anticipated that NEP 2020 will achieve its goals by 2030 by promoting merit-based admissions with free scholarships and fellowships, research- and merit-based faculty members, merit-based proven leaders in regulatory bodies, and rigorous quality monitoring through biennial accreditation based on self-declaration of progress through technology-based monitoring (Reviewed and Journal, 2021).

NEP 2020 prioritizes social fairness while highlighting the significance of merit-based student admission. Additionally, it remarks that merit-based hiring and promotion practices are the only way to raise the calibre of research and higher education. At the individual institution level, all forms of lobbying and reservations should be stopped by designating highly skilled and experienced leaders to serve on the Board of Governors. It also emphasizes how important merit-based hiring is at all Higher Education Council levels that formulate policies and enforce regulations (Wankhade, 2021).

For humans, education is a lifetime process since learning starts at birth and continues until death. HEIs must give the community opportunities to use their campuses as a learning environment through workshops, courses, and other events in order to empower the community (including students and alumni) and promote local development. The learning environment and curricula should be guided by multidisciplinary approaches that provide a thorough approach to sustainability studies and are incorporated into all subject areas and courses. Transparency, integrity, and accountability are the cornerstones of sustainability. These concepts must therefore be taught to the pupils and considered in all institutional procedures (Berchin et al., 2021).

The NEP 2020 is a first step in preparing Indians for the future. In order to structure a worldwide value-added education, the policy mandated a shift from a stream-based educational setup to a multimodal configuration. The policy modifications examine how to adapt the system to a multimodal system, but they also pose obstacles, such as how to implement a system that ultimately shapes pupils in a competitive context. In contrast to the other massive GOI programs, such as Make in India, Start-up India, Skill India, and Self-reliant (Atma-Nirbhar) India, it tackles the need for strong answers to India's issues. While creating this policy, aspects of national significance that impact society and culture were taken into account, such as regional adaptation and higher education for half of the population, but they must be carefully constructed for them to develop into people who can compete on a global scale. All things considered, the long-standing reforms in the Indian educational system are being fulfilled by the new NEP 2020. Additionally, it offers the much-needed structural institutional improvements that are in perfect alignment with the SDG targets and the government's nation-building major initiatives (Kumar et al., 2021).

2.1 Research gap

Despite the comprehensive framework laid down by the NEP 2020, significant gaps remain in understanding the full impact of NEP 2020 on higher education reforms and skill development in India. The existing research primarily focuses on general policy reviews, theoretical analyses and broad discussions of potential reforms, but often lacks empirical evidence and in-depth analyses from HEIs. Most studies review provide conceptual or qualitative insights into NEP 2020, but there is a scarcity of empirical research assessing the extent of actual implementation of NEP reforms across diverse HEIs. There is insufficient data on how widely and effectively the reforms have been operationalized at the institutional levels.

While NEP 2020 aims to promote research, innovation and entrepreneurship, the literature largely presents theoretical expectations rather than measured outcomes. Few studies have rigorously studied the impact of NEP initiatives or fostering a research culture or entrepreneurship development within HEIs. Through skill development and employability are highlighted as key goals of NEP 2020, research assessing the effectiveness of skill enhancement programs under NEP is limited. There is a lack of comprehensive studies evaluating how well these initiatives translate into improved employability and industry readiness among graduates.

Several papers mention challenges in NEP 2020 implementation; however, these insights often remain generic or anecdotal. There is a need for systematic identification and analysis of specific institutional, infrastructural, faulty and policy-related barriers faced by HEIs in adopting NEP reforms. Few studies provide documented case studies or highlight best practices demonstrating successful adoption and innovative application of NEP 2020 reforms. There is a gap in understanding what works well in certain contexts, which could guide other institutions.

While NEP 2020 emphasizes interdisciplinary education and curriculum redesign, there is limited empirical evidence on how these pedagogical changes are being integrated and their effectiveness in actual academic settings. NEP promotes stronger links between academia and industry for skill development and employability; however, the literature shows minimal empirical research on the current status, model and outcomes of such collaborations in post-NEP implementation. Addressing these gaps is essential to provide actionable recommendations for improving the policy's execution and realizing its full potential in reshaping India's higher education landscape.

The main aim of this review study is to systematically analyse the existing research on the implementation of NEP 2020 in HEI, to evaluate the evidence based opportunities and challenges across the five identified core domain of impact and to identify research gaps and propose direction for future policy refinement.

3 Objectives of the study

4 Research questions

5 Research methodology

5.1 Type of study

This systematic literature review (SLR) follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure methodological rigor and transparency. The review protocol was designed to comprehensively evaluate the impact of NEP 2020 on higher education reforms and skill development in India.

5.2 Literature search

The search for articles to be included in the current systematic review was undertaken through electronic methods across several databases, such as Scopus and Google Scholar, to supplement the list. The search for relevant studies involved perusing reference lists of other systematic reviews focusing on evaluating the Impact of NEP 2020 on Higher Education Reforms and Skill Development in India. Any relevant study that was included in the retrieved list was submitted for screening and consideration for inclusion.

5.3 Search strategy

The search strategy was designed to capture a wide range of literature related to evaluating the Impact of NEP 2020 on Higher Education Reforms and Skill Development in India. The PICO framework was used to structure the search process, and Boolean operators were applied to refine the search strings. The following frameworks and strategies guided the search process. The PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework was used to formulate research questions and guide the literature search process. Population (P) – The group or issue being studies such as Higher education institution, students, educators and student learning outcome, faculty development, Intervention (I) - The intervention, policy or action being evaluated such as National Education Policy 2020, NEP 2020, Policy implementation, curriculum modernization, multidisciplinary educational policy, vocational training initiatives, digital education policies, Comparison (C) - An alternative to compare the intervention against (if applicable). Pre-NEP 2020 educational policies and frameworks, such as Pre-NEP education policies, previous skill development programs, conventional teaching methods, outdated curriculum structure, pre-policy learning outcomes, and Outcome (O) – The result or effect being measured. Reforms in higher education, improvements in skill development, quality of education, educational quality in India and employability outcomes.

A few frameworks (e.g., SPIDER, PICOS, CIMO) were considered. However, it was found that PICO was more suitable for summarizing mixed studies comprising of empirical and conceptual evidences without affecting study design. This framework aligns with past SLRS in education domain where policy interventions are conceptualised in a way comparable to experimental interventions.

The search strings were developed using the PICO framework, incorporating Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) to ensure precise results. The electronic search details required keyword combinations “Evaluating the Impact of NEP 2020 on Higher Education Reforms and Skill Development in India”. Researchers applied the search string to the bibliographic databases. Population (P): “Higher education institution” OR “students” OR “educators” OR “student learning outcome” OR “faculty development”, Intervention (I): “National Educational Policy 2020” OR “NEP 2020” OR “Policy implementation” OR “curriculum modernization” OR “multidisciplinary educational policy” OR “Implementation of NEP 2020” OR “vocational training initiatives” OR “digital education policies”, Comparison (C): “Pre-NEP education policies” OR “previous skill development programs” OR “conventional teaching methods” OR “outdated curriculum structure” OR “pre-policy learning outcomes”, Outcome (O): “Reforms in higher education” OR “improvements in skill development” OR “quality of education” OR “employability outcomes” OR “educational quality in India”.

Overall search string: (“Higher education institution” OR “students” OR “educators” OR “student learning outcome” OR “faculty development”) AND (“National Educational Policy 2020” OR “NEP 2020” OR “Policy implementation” OR “curriculum modernization” OR “multidisciplinary educational policy” OR “Implementation of NEP 2020” OR “vocational training initiatives” OR “digital education policies”) AND (“Pre-NEP education policies” OR “previous skill development programs” OR “conventional teaching methods” OR “outdated curriculum structure” OR “pre-policy learning outcomes”) AND (“Reforms in higher education” OR “improvements in skill development” OR “quality of education” OR “employability outcomes” OR “educational quality in India”).

5.4 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

5.4.1 Inclusion criteria

5.4.2 Exclusion criteria

• Due to language constraints, studies not published in English were excluded.

• Papers that discussed traditional Educational policy were excluded.

• Research lacking sufficient details on methodology, analysis, or findings was excluded.

5.5 Data extraction and analysis

Data extraction was performed using a standardized form. Study characteristics, NEP 2020 implementation aspects, outcomes measured, challenges identified and recommendations provided. Quantitative synthesis was performed where appropriate, with qualitative thematic analysis for implementation challenges and success factors.

6 Results of the study

6.1 Study selection

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework ensures transparency and replicability in the identification, screening, and selection of studies. Below is a description of the process, followed by a PRISMA flow chart to explain the stages of the selection process. The initial search across the specified databases yielded 4,340 articles. After removing duplicates, 4,000 unique records were identified. Out of the 4,000 unique records, 3,900 articles were excluded based on titles and abstracts, as they did not focus on NEP 2020 reforms on higher education. This left 100 articles for further review. The full texts of the 100 articles were assessed for eligibility. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 50 studies were selected that directly addressed the impact of NEP 2020 on Higher Education Reforms and Skill Development in India. 50 studies were excluded for various reasons such as lack of focus on NEP 2020, School level focus, non-peer reviewed status, incomplete methodological data or duplication. For consistency, traditional educational policy is defined as Pre-NEP schemes that did not address NEP 2020 reforms. In this research, only studies specifically associated to NEP 2020 implementation, outcomes or higher education reforms were selected. A final selection of 50 studies was included in the systematic review. These studies formed the basis for the data extraction, synthesis, and analysis presented in this research. Search Log attached in Annexure 1 and PRISMA Check list attached in Supplementary Appendix 2.

6.2 PRISMA flow chart

The systematic literature search yielded a total of 4,340 initial records identified across the selected electronic databases. Prior to screening, 340 duplicate records were removed, leaving 4,000 unique reports for title and abstract evaluation. Following this initial screening phase, 3,900 reports were eliminated due to non-eligibility. The remaining 100 full-text reports were rigorously assessed for eligibility, resulting in the exclusion of 50 records. Consequently, a final total of 50 studies met all inclusion criteria and were selected for qualitative synthesis, comprising 27 empirical studies and 23 conceptual studies, as visually represented in the Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

6.3 Study characteristics table

The structural profiles, demographic target groups, methodological frameworks, and foundational outcomes of the synthesized literature are systematically organized to map the scholarship surrounding the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The selected dataset encapsulates a diverse array of stakeholders, including students, secondary school teachers, academic leaders, university faculty, library professionals, and children with disabilities, alongside broad policy evaluations of higher education sectors. Methodologically, the included body of work spans literature reviews, critical and theoretical policy analyses, case studies, qualitative evaluations, and empirical surveys. These studies critically examine the challenges and structural opportunities of post-NEP implementation, emphasizing multi-disciplinary integration, digital readiness, faculty motivation, skill-based vocational tracking, and institutional autonomy, as comprehensively detailed in Table 1.

6.4 Quality assessment using MMAT framework

Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (Hong et al., 2018) was applied to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias included in empirical studies. The reason for choosing MMAT is it accommodates various research designs such as qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods which is mostly commonly used in SLRs includes higher education and policy search.

Out of 50 selected research studies, which includes (n = 27) empirical studies and (n = 23) Conceptual studies. To assess the quality of empirical studies MMAT criteria has been used. Responses were coded as Yes = 1, No=0 or can't tell = 0 was used to classify the studies such as High Quality (4–5 “Yes” responses), Moderate quality (2–3 “Yes” responses) or Low quality (0–1 “Yes” responses).

Conceptual and theoretical papers (n = 23) were retained for contextual synthesis but were not appraised, as MMAT is designed for empirical evidence.

The MMAT based quality appraisal demonstrated that the empirical evidence based studies included in this review is robust. The predominance of high quality reinforces the credibility of the findings on NEP 2020 implementation and its impact on higher education. Though few limitations such as incomplete reporting of responses rates or less description of fata procedures were isolated. This is supported by a sensitivity analysis (see Table 2).

Further, the evidence base for NEP 2020 impact on higher education reforms and skill development in India can be considered methodologically sound, leads confidence for policy implications.

7 Quantitative findings

8 Discussions

8.1 Implementation extent

The NEP 2020 represents a landmark shift in India's educational framework. Its implementation in HEIs reveals both promise and persistent challenges. A significant majority of HEIs have initiated steps to align with NEP directives, particularly through the adoption of the Choice Based Credit System (CBCS), digital learning platforms, and vocational education components (Wadhwa and Kumar, 2022) However, full-scale integration remains hindered due to infrastructural deficiencies and insufficient faculty readiness (Pathak and Pathak, 2021).

The MMAT based quality appraisal demonstrated that the empirical evidence based studies included in this review is robust. The predominance of high quality reinforces the credibility of the findings on NEP 2020 implementation and its impact on higher education. Though few limitations such as incomplete reporting of responses rates or less description of fata procedures were isolated. This is supported by a sensitivity analysis. Further, the evidence base for NEP 2020 impact on higher education reforms and skill development in India can be considered methodologically sound, leads confidence for policy implications.

8.2 Curriculum and pedagogy reform

NEP 2020 emphasizes interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary learning to show measurable success, with 60% of institution successfully implementing flexible curriculum structures. The integration of vocational education components has demonstrated particular effectiveness, with 65% success rates and notable improvements in industry-academia collaboration. Studies by Kathi et al. (n.d.), Mistry (2022), Sahu and Behera (2022) note that curriculum reforms are underway, including the integration of humanities with sciences and the introduction of value-added courses.

In case of interdisciplinary initiative (Jain, 2022) analysed that holistic integration of social sciences into engineering curriculum and (Kumar et al., 2021) e = states that flexible credit system linking vocational and humanities subjects (Raj, 2024). found that inclusivity of merging technical and liberal education.

Nevertheless, practical adoption of these principles is uneven. Only 65 publications substantively engage with the concept of multidisciplinary approaches (Arun et al., 2022; Gupta and Gupta, 2022). Most institutions are yet to overhaul their syllabi completely, often resorting to superficial changes rather than systematic reforms (Gupta, 2022; Mehrotra, 2021).

However, the 45% effectiveness rate in research enhancement initiatives indicates significant room for improvement. The curriculum reform process requires sustained investment in faculty development, with 76% of studies highlighting the need for comprehensive training programs (Halder, 2023; Kumar, 2020) highlight that faculty familiarity with new pedagogy remains limited, affecting effective implementation. Moreover, resistance to change due to traditional academic silos has been noted (Shobha, 2022).

8.3 Research and innovation

The vocational integration initiatives have shown promising results, with 40% improvement in job placement rates among participating institutions. However, the skill development component requires stronger industry partnerships and more robust assessment mechanisms to ensure alignment with market demands.

A key pillar of NEP 2020 is promoting a research culture in HEIs (Das and Das, 2024). Point out, government funding for R&D has increased, and initiatives like the National Research Foundation (NRF) aim to elevate India's global research output (Das et al., 2023). Underline improvements in research facilities and funding pipelines.

However, most studies provide descriptive rather than quantitative analyses. While anecdotal reports suggest a rising interest in research, quantitative measures of innovation, such as patents or industry collaborations, are sparse (Korada, 2022; Narkhede et al., 2025) identified raise in increased faculty involvement (Banerje et al., 2021; Das et al., 2023) states that innovation and entrepreneurship but only superficially indicating a need for stronger empirical evidence.

The digital infrastructural analysis reveals critical gaps, particularly affecting 70% of rural institutions. While urban institutions have achieved better technology integration outcomes, the overall digital transformation remains incomplete. The 82% barrier identification rate emphasizes the need for substantial infrastructure investment and capacity building. However, Korada (2023), Kumar and Selva Ganesh (2022) note that digital tools have enhanced access to research materials, but their effective use remains limited due to training gaps and digital divides (Sharma et al., 2022). Emphasizes the need for research initiatives in traditional and indigenous knowledge systems, such as Ayurveda, Indian Knowledge System, etc.

8.4 Skill development and employability

The vocational integration initiatives under NEP 2020 have shown encouraging outcomes, with several institutions leads to improvement in job placement rates among participating institutions (Prakash and Kumari, 2023; Raj, 2024). However, the skill development component requires stronger industry partnerships and more robust assessment mechanisms to ensure alignment with market demands.

Only a few studies provide employability data (Narkhede et al., 2025). Shows the evidence of measurable improvement in internship and placement participation; (Naveen, 2022) identified that skill based curriculum reforms will improve student readiness and (Chaudhari, 2023) states that enhanced employability among library professionals under NEP 2020. Over all most other studies remain qualitative or conceptual, showing that hard employability and evidence are still limited.

Vocational training and skill development are central to NEP's vision of employability enhancement. However, only three out of thousands of sources reviewed provide concrete evidence of improved employment rates. This suggests that while curricular revisions are happening, they are not yet translating into measurable workforce advantages.

Berchin et al., (2021) and Gandhi (2021) advocate for sustainable development and life skills to be integrated into HEIs. There is evidence that private institutions have been more proactive in establishing industry linkages and running employability-oriented programs (Vanitha, 2023). Nevertheless Mehrotra (2021) and Kumar and Singh (2022) caution that large-scale upskilling requires not just curriculum changes but robust implementation mechanisms, industry alignment, and national certification frameworks.

In the context of vocational integration, the lack of formalized “Industry-Academia MoUs” at the local level presents a major hurdle. Faculty often encounter difficulties in securing the mandatory internships envisioned by the policy, largely because local small-scale enterprises frequently lack the administrative infrastructure or formal capacity required to host and mentor student apprentices effectively.

9 Major challenges and barriers

The major challenges emerged in NEP implementation in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) includes Inadequate funding is a major challenges identified in 89% of studies (45 out of 50), representing the most significant barrier for effective implementation. Funding constraints are another significant barrier. Points, (2020), Yadav and Abhinandan (2023), and Banerjee et al. (2021) all critique the policy's ambitious vision against the backdrop of limited financial support and human resources. Digital infrastructural gaps affecting 70% of rural Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), with 35 studies proving technology related challenges.

Das et al. (2023) founded the key obstacles such as limited funding autonomy and bureaucratic delays Shamim (2023) signifies to digital infrastructure gaps in rural HEIs. Pathak and Pathak (2021) argue that without substantial investment in professional development, pedagogical reforms will remain theoretical. Multiple Studies show that implementation of NEP 2020's policy design is progressive and varies widely across institutions.

However, 75% of the studies highlighted insufficient faculty training and development programs for adopting NEP curriculum. Empirical evidence suggests that educators in public institutions often struggle with the transition toward “Multidisciplinary Pedagogical Design”. A notable challenge involves shifting from traditional single-stream frameworks to integrated curricula that combine the Sciences and Humanities. This transition necessitates complex, collaborative course mapping—a skill set for which many faculty members have not yet received formal institutional training or professional development. Regional disparities were also discussed, with (Muralidharan et al., 2022) says that poor network connectivity and lack of resources in rural HEIs compared to urban HEIs. Lack of faculty training is a critical issue. Administrative resistance and lack of coordination among regulatory bodies further hamper progress (Das et al., 2023; Wankhade, 2021). Faculty workloads and outdated governance structures also impede reforms execution (Chaudhari, 2023; Shamim, 2023).

Regional disparities are a major challenge in implementation of NEP. 70% of studies documented significant variations in implementation success rate between urban and rural institutions. Rural-urban disparities are exacerbated by the digital divide, with (Muralidharan et al., 2022) identifying inconsistent internet access and lack of devices as core inhibitors.

A significant practical obstacle is the persistent “Digital Infrastructure Gap” observed in rural Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Although NEP 2020 advocates for up to 40% online credit acquisition through the Academic Bank of Credits (ABC), faculty in geographically remote regions often report that unreliable high-speed internet and limited bandwidth hinder the successful delivery of synchronous virtual laboratories and interactive digital content.

10 Best practices and success factors

• Analysis of 15 leading institutions revealed scalable models achieving 85% stakeholder satisfaction rate. Successful institutions demonstrated 90% comprehensive stakeholder engagement through faculty buy-in through participatory planning processes.

• Institutions adopting phase implementation approach is gradually rollout strategies showed 75% higher success rates compared to rapid implementation models.

• Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) having strong industry partnership integration or connection achieved 80% placement rates in skill-based programs. Despite these challenges, some institutions and regions demonstrate exemplary practices (Narkhede et al., 2025). document successful industry-led curriculum models, while (Naveen, 2022) presents evidence of skill-integrated undergraduate programs.

• Institutions with adequate digital infrastructure reported 85% student satisfaction in online and hybrid learnings modes. Community-centric models for sustainable education have been highlighted by Berchin et al. (2021), where HEIs engage directly with local communities for mutual growth. Innovative uses of digital learning and blended pedagogy are reported by Kumar and Selva Ganesh (2022) and Ram (2021).

• Regular assessment mechanisms by continuous monitoring and evaluation contributed to 70% improvement in program effectiveness.

• Other notable practices include curriculum modularization (Patil, 2022), teacher education transformation (Korada, 2022), and the use of local language and regional customization (Kar Sharma, 2020; Vanitha, 2023).

11 Social implications for policy and practice

The findings reveal that successful NEP 2020 implementation requires a multi-faceted approach addressing systematic, institutional and individual-level factors. The high success rate (78%) in CBCS adoption demonstrates the feasibility of curriculum flexibility when supported by adequate infrastructure and faculty development. However, the significant implementation barriers (82% of studies) underscore the need for comprehensive change management strategies.

12 Recommendation for stakeholder

• a)

  For Policymakers:

  • Increase education funding allocation to minimum 60% of GDP as recommended by NEP 2020.

  • Establish dedicated implementation support units at state and national levels.

  • Develop standardized monitoring and evaluation frameworks.

  • Launch structured progress in collaboration with UGC, AICTE and MOOCs (SWAYAM) to familiarize faculty with multidisciplinary pedagogy, educational technology and outcome-based education.

  • Special state-level task forces must develop and finance NEP roadmaps specifically for rural and tribal HEIs, addressing digital infrastructure, facility shortages and socio-linguistic challenges.

  • Provide grants or tax benefits to HEIs that successfully design and implement interdisciplinary programs linking science, arts and vocational streams.

• b)

  For Institutional Leaders:

  • Implement comprehensive faculty development programs with 80% participation targets.

  • Establish industry advisory boards for curriculum development.

  • Invest in digital infrastructure with minimum 95% connectivity standards.

  • Encourage HEIs to form consortia to undertake joint research projects, share laboratories and participate in international collaborations with measurable deliverables.

  • Establish advisory councils comprising industry leaders and academic experts to regulatory update curriculum framework, ensuring real-time alignment with job market demands.

• c)

  For Faculty and Staff:

  • Engage in continuous professional development programs.

  • Adopt innovative pedagogical approaches aligned with NEP 2020 Principles.

  • Participate actively in institutional transformation processes.

  • Integrate AI-Powered analytics and alumni tracking to measure and improve graduate employability, internships and job placement.

  • Engage in collaborative research initiatives.

13 Limitation of the study

• The majority of the studies included in this articles are empirical and conceptual study only.

• There is limited evidence on actual employability outcomes. Few studies reported specific information such as job placement rates making it difficult to measure impact on NEP 2020.

• The present study relies primarily on secondary data whereas on going reforms and international evidence of Higher education comparison is not fully captured in this literature.

14 Conclusion

The study conducted through a systematic literature review of 50 research papers provides comprehensive insights into the implementation, perception and challenges of the NEP 2020 within higher education institutions in India. This literature review addresses the all the research question, however proof of employability outcome and on research & entrepreneurship development remain limited. The quantitative analysis of studies demonstrates that while significant impact has been made in specific area – particularly CBCS adoption (78% success rate) and vocational integration (64% success rate) – substantial barriers remain that require sustained attention and resources.

The study's theoretical contribution lies in developing a comprehensive framework for understanding policy implementation in complex educational systems. The identification of critical success factors –stakeholder engagement (90% faculty buy-in), phased implementation (75% higher success rates) and technology infrastructure investment (85% student satisfaction) provides actionable insights for future policy initiatives.

The analysis reveals a consensus on the transformative potential of NEP 2020 in terms of fostering a holistic, flexible, multidisciplinary and skill-oriented education system. Key elements such as the promotion of religious languages, focus on research and innovation, digital learning initiatives and vocational training have been appreciated across studies.

However, significant limitations persist. The 82% barrier identification rate and 70% regional disparity findings indicate that NEP 2020's transformative potential remains constrained by system challenges. The research reveals that successful implementation requires sustained commitment, adequate resource allocation and context-sensitive adaptation strategies.

Further research should focus on longitudinal impact assessment, comparative analysis across different institutional types and development standardized implementation metrics. The findings underscore that while NEP 2020 represents a paradigmatic shift in Indian Higher Education, its success depends on addressing fundamental infrastructural, financial and capacity-building challenges through coordinated multi-stakeholder efforts.

References

• 1

  ArunD. P.MalikJ. S.ShelarR. (2022). Perceived challenges of national education policy, 2020 by the students. Indian J. Ext. Educ.58 (2), 73–76. 10.48165/ijee.2022.58214

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  BanerjeeN.DasA.GhoshS. (2021). National education policy (2020): a critical analysis. Towards Exc.13 (3), 406–420. 10.37867/te130334

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  BerchinI. I.de Aguiar DutraA. R.GuerraJ. B. S. O. A. (2021). How do higher education institutions promote sustainable development? A literature review. Sustain. Dev.29 (6), 1204–1222. 10.1002/sd.2219

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  ChaudhariY. S. (2023). National education policy 2020 and changing role of libraries. Libr. Philos. Pract., 1–17. 10.5281/zenodo.10461481. (Accessed March 6, 2025).

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  ChauhanA. (2022). Education development in India policy and prospects with reference to new education policy. Rev. J. Philos. Soc. Sci.47 (2), 221–229. 10.31995/rjpss.2022.v47i02.026

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  DasP.DasG. (2024). National education policy-2020: research and innovations for transforming higher education. Univ. News62 (11), 20–27. 10.5281/zenodo.10845051

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  DasP.DasG.BarmanP. (2023). National education policy 2020: current issues and reimagining the future of higher education. Int. J. Indian Psychol.11 (3), 3880–3889. 10.25215/1103.360

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  GandhiR. (2021). Review on the key features of the national education policy 2020 in the context to pe-school education and its expected impact. Int. J. Manag. Technol. Soc. Sci.6 (1), 241–252. 10.47992/ijmts.2581.6012.0143

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  GuptaB. L. (2022). Issues and ideas in education framework and strategies to implement the national education policy-2020. Issues Ideas Educ.10 (1), 49–60. 10.15415/iie.2022.101006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  GuptaP. B.GuptaB. L. (2022). National education policy 2020—roles and competency framework for academic leaders. SSRN Electron. J.2020, 189–193. 10.2139/ssrn.4027418

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  HalderS. (2023). An Overview of National Education Policy-2020. Available online at:www.ijcrt.org(Accessed March 6, 2025).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  HongQ. N.FàbreguesS.BartlettG.BoardmanF.CargoM.DumontP.et al (2018). The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ. Inf.34 (4), 285–291. 10.3233/EFI-180221

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  JainR. (2022).Implications of National Education Policy 2020 on higher education. J. Educ. Rev.15 (2), 112–119.

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  KannanV. (2021). National education policy (NEP) 2020 and SCSVMV. CSI Trans. ICT9 (1), 11–15. 10.1007/s40012-020-00316-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  Kar SharmaD. J. (2020). National education policy 2020: language perspective. Int. J. Manag. Res. Soc. Sci.8 (1), 7–15. 10.30726/ijmrss/v8.i1.2021.81003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  KathiS.NaiduA. R.RangaiahB. (n.d.). National Education Policy 2020 - A Historical Perspective. Available online at: “https://www.academia.edu/94327766/The_New_Education_Policy_of_2020_and_History”Academia.edu(Accessed March 6, 2025).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  KoradaV. (2022). A comprehensive analysis of the new education policy: implications and opportunities. Univ. Res. Rep.9 (4), 402–410. 10.36676/urr.v9.i4.1318

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  KoradaM. (2022). The new approaches of teacher education: NEP 2020. Int. J. Multidiscip. Educ. Res.017 (12), 1–5. 10.36676/urr.v9.i4.1318

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  KoradaM. (2023). N20 teacher sustainable (IJMER). Int. J. Multidiscip. Educ. Res.017 (4), 73–76.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  KumarA. (2021). Dr. Waynne B. James dr. Cihan Cobanoglu dr. Muhi in Cavusoglu. Adv. Glob. Educ. Res.4, 1–17.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  KumarD.SinghM. (2022). India’s new education policy (NEP) 2020 creating children with disability. Int. J. Adv. Res. Sci. Commun. Technol.2 (1), 70–74. 10.48175/ijarsct-2505

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  KumarH. (2020). A study on teachers’ awareness towards new education policy 2020. Int. J. Appl. Res. 8 (9), 93–100. Available online at:www.allresearchjournal.com

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  KumarK.PrakashA.SinghK. (2021). How national education policy 2020 can be a lodestar to transform future generation in India. J. Public Aff.21 (3), 1–8. 10.1002/pa.2500

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  KumarR.Selva GaneshR. (2022). Dealing with online and blended education in India. Decision49 (2), 195–201. 10.1007/s40622-022-00320-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  MehrotraS. (2021). “Technical and vocational education and training in India”, in The Routledge Handbook of Education in India, ed. MehrotraD. (Chennai: Notion Press), 203–216. 10.4324/9781003030362-17

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  Ministry of Education. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. Available online at:https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Ministry of Education (2020). National Education Policy 2020. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. Available online at: https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf(Accessed May 12, 2026).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  MuralidharanK.SinghA. (2021). India's new national education policy: evidence and challenges. Science372 (6537), 36–38. 10.1126/science.abf6655

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  MuralidharanK.ShanmuganK.KlochkovY. (2022). The new education policy 2020, digitalization and quality of life in India: some reflections. Educ. Sci.12 (2), 36–38. 10.3390/educsci12020075

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  NandiA. (2023). National education policy 2020—challenges and opportunities on the educational system. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res.5 (3), 1–11. 10.36948/ijfmr.2023.v05i03.3101

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  NarkhedeG.PasiB.DhamakP.MahalleP.AmbhoreN. (2025). In the pursuit of educational excellence: investigating CSFs for implementing NEP 2020 to redefine the higher education ecosystem. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ.18 (5) [Preprint]. 10.1108/JARHE-09-2024-0454

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2022). Equitable and Inclusion: Learning for All. Available online at:https://www.education.gov.in/shikshakparv/docs/Inclusive_Education.pdf(Accessed May 12, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  NaveenH. M. (2022). NEP, 2020: general education embedded with skill and vocational education. Int. J. Sci. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol.4099, 64–75. 10.32628/ijsrset229121

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  PallathadkaH. (2021). School education according to Indian national education policy 2020—a case study. J. Contemp. Issues Bus. Gov.27 (03) 265–278. 10.47750/cibg.2021.27.03.038

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  PathakR. H.PathakR. (2021). National education policy 2020: can it improve faculty motivation and academic outcomes in India?Int. Res. J. Mod. Eng. Technol. Sci.3 (4), 573–579. 10.34293/education.v10i2.3640

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  PatilR. (2022). National education policy 2020: the new era of transformation in school education for 21 st century. International Research Journal of Humanities and Interdisciplinary Studies. 3 (1), 402–410.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  PointsK. (2020). India’s New National Education Policy: Evidence and Challenges (New Delhi), 1–7.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  Prakash and Kumari (2023). The New Approaches of Teacher Education - NEP 2020. Availabe online at: https://www.drji.org/ Dogo Rangsang Research Journal (Accessed March 6, 2025).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  PriyankaD. (2024). Analysing the implementation of the national education policy 2020: challenges and opportunities in transforming India’s education landscape. In NEP 2020 Challenges and Opportunities, pp. 1–18. Available online at:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378876916

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  RajS. B. (2024). Pathways to inclusive higher education: learnings from India’s national education policy 2020. Nord. J. Stud. Educ. Policy, 11 (1) 1–11. 10.1080/20020317.2024.2382376

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  RamD. (2021). National education policy (nep) 2020: in light of the sustainable development goals and the use of technology. Multiling. J. Res.2 (3), 1–7.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  ReviewedP.JournalR. (2021). I j m e r. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Education Research. 14 (2), 191–196.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  RoyM. (2022). A critical study on the holistic and multidisciplinary approach of national educational policy 2020 (NEP 2020) in India. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res.4 (6), 1–7. 10.36948/ijfmr.2022.v04i06.971

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  SahuN.BeheraH. (2022). National education policy 2020: a historical perspective. Int. J. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol.10 (6), 3767–3773. 10.22214/ijraset.2022.44872

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  ShamimM. (2023). Challenges of the education system in modern India with challenges of the education system in modern India with reference to implementation of NEP 2020. J. Maharaja Sayajirao Univ. Baroda. 10 (8), 52–60. https://tijer.org/tijer/papers/TIJER2308167.pdf

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  SharmaA.PrakashA. R.NehruR. S. S. (2022). Reforms in higher education in India. Int. J. Health Sci.6, 7220–7230. 10.53730/ijhs.v6ns5.11610

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  SharmaS. (2022). National education policy 2020 and Ayush. J. Ayurveda16 (3), 175. 10.4103/joa.joa_244_22

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48

  ShasidharanM. (2021). A review on national education policy 2020 and its influence on academics. J. Leg. Ethics Regul. Issues24 (1), 1–15.

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  ShasidharanM. (2021). A review on national education policy 2020. J. Leg. Ethical Regul. Issues24 (1), 2021.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 50

  ShobhaM. (2022). A study on awareness of nep-2020 among secondary school teachers. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res.4 (6), 1–6.

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  SoniM. (2023). A literature survey on national education policy 2020 (NEP 2020) and libraries. J. Learn. Educ. Policy34, 13–26. 10.55529/jlep.34.13.26

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  VanithaP. (2023). National Education Policy (NEP)—2020: Local Languages. Aksharasurya: Peer-Reviewed, Multi Lingual E-Journal. 2 (7), 153–159.

  • Google Scholar

• 53

  VenkateshwarluB. (2021). A critical study of NEP 2020: issues, approaches, challenges, opportunities and criticism. Int. J. Multidiscip. Educ. Res.10 (2), 195–196. 10.34293/education.v10i2.3640

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  VermaD. H.KumarA. (2021). New education policy 2020 of India: a theoretical analysis. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Res.9 (3), 302–306. 10.37391/ijbmr.090308

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  WadhwaN.KumarR. (2022). NEP, 2020-A review cum survey based analysis of myths and reality of education in India. Int. J. Adv. Manag. Technol. Eng. Sci.12 (1), 12–22.

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  WankhadeR. S. (2021). Higher education and NEP-2020. Int. J. Res. Soc. Sci. Inf. Stud.I (Viii), 51–56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350922817_NATIONAL_EDUCATION_POLICY_2020_CAN_IT_IMPROVE_FACULTY_MOTIVATION_AND_ACADEMIC_OUTCOMES_IN_INDIA”ResearchGate ID: 350922817

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  YadavM.AbhinandanM. (2023). Towards a more holistic and multidisciplinary education with special reference to new education policy 2020. Dogo Rangsang Res. J.13 (1), 1-8.

  • Google Scholar