Student Experiences of Digital Literacy and Learning Management System Adoption in Rural Higher Education

Student Experiences of Digital Literacy and Learning Management System Adoption in Rural Higher Education | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Student Experiences of Digital Literacy and Learning Management System Adoption in Rural Higher Education Oluwatoyin Ayodele Ajani This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7225403/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract While Learning Management Systems (LMS) are increasingly central to higher education globally, their implementation in resource-constrained rural contexts presents profound challenges to digital equity. This study addresses the critical gap in understanding the lived experiences of undergraduate students in a rural South African university, a demographic often marginalised in the discourse on educational technology. Adopting a qualitative inquiry design, this research utilises semi-structured interviews to explore students' perceptions, challenges, and the socio-cultural factors shaping their engagement with the institutional LMS. Framed by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), the study analyses how constructs such as effort expectancy and facilitating conditions are profoundly influenced by students' prior digital exposure and infrastructural realities. Findings reveal significant barriers, encapsulated by one student's admission: "I did not even know how to log in." Key themes include initial anxieties rooted in low digital literacy, the critical role of peer-led informal support networks, and frustrations arising from infrastructural deficits and inconsistent pedagogical integration by faculty. By amplifying student voices, this research challenges techno-optimistic narratives. It provides crucial insights for developing culturally responsive, equitable, and context-aware digital learning strategies in under-resourced higher education settings. rural university digital divide Learning Management Systems (LMS) digital equity student perceptions Introduction The digital technology integration is nowadays the defining feature of the current pedagogical landscape, before it even touches upon the physical logistics of the delivery and administration of higher education across the globe. Central to this paradigm shift lie the LMSs and the very institutional policy surrounding them, which were sometimes considered just a set of tools (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020 ). Moodle, Blackboard, and Canvas are considered generic software equipped to provide a structured digital milieu for generating, delivering, and assessing educational content. LMS orchestrates teaching and learning as the education systems navigate toward a digitally oriented society, rendering it increasingly essential (Ghavifekr & Rosdy, 2015 ). While LMSs are employed worldwide, universities in more rural areas can expect them to have profound and immediate applicability for their circumstances. These institutions are regularly faced with the trinity of geographical remoteness, low funding, and poor infrastructure, all of which have a considerable toll on education quality and accessibility (Smith & Rahman, 2021 ). In this situation, LMS offers solutions that are the antithesis of brick-and-mortar edifices: scalable and flexible LMS solutions overturn geographical and time limitations by providing anytime-and-anywhere access to educational resources that bolster learning (Jones & Pimdee, 2017 ). However, the transformative nature of an LMS remains unrealised if that implementation is embroiled in key hindrances, especially within rural contexts. Arguably foremost among these is a persistent digital divide, to the extent that rapidly changing developments in internet connectivity skills and access to modern computer hardware significantly hamper any worthwhile digital teaching initiative (Bervell & Umar, 2019 ). This technological divide does not merely hinder the operational aspect of the LMS. However, it has far-reaching implications concerning educational equity at the cost of creating segregated learning settings, whereby students who enjoy better resources acquire an edge over those who are less privileged. More than just issues of infrastructure constitute the prerequisites for the success of an LMS; the students' perceptions and attitudes are key to this success. A substantial body of literature agrees that when students hold positive perceptions of an LMS, they are more likely to engage and thus perform better academically (Almaiah et al., 2020 ). Factors conducive to willingness to accept and actively use an LMS include such things as usability, accessibility, and actual contribution to the learning process (Nguyen, 2019 ). By the same token, however, negative perceptions, often associated with poorly designed systems or the lack of proper support, may lead to user frustration and a loss of interest, thereby impeding rather than facilitating the intended educational function of the system. The use of LMSs raises not just technical but also tremendous pedagogical questions. A pertinent concern has been raised by critics regarding the depersonalisation of learning via digital means, arguing that this approach reduces learners' ability to engage in higher-order thinking and deep learning, which are nurtured more effectively through conventional teacher-student interaction (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004 ). The danger remains that an LMS becomes little more than an electronic library for course materials, rather than an active, collaborative environment. That is, for an LMS to be beneficial, its implementation must be coupled with sound instructional objectives and active learning methods that require genuine involvement (Johnson et al., 2018 ). A juxtaposition of technical, perceptual, and pedagogical challenges inevitably affects social justice. Technology-reliant education can only worsen existing socio-economic discrepancies, particularly for those students who lack access to broadband and appropriate technology in their domestic environment (Selwyn, 2016 ). Considering South Africa's oppressive history of social inequalities, it is concerning how such a technological divide can further disperse educational opportunities. Thus, the aim should be neither the inculcation of technology for technology’s sake nor the mere implementation of digital technology, but instead geared towards inclusive intervention. These issues have since been brought into sharp focus with the rapid and emergency switch to remote online learning brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has forced many rural universities and colleges to adopt or substantially expand their use of LMS in a short time to keep teaching going (Bao, 2020 ). These unplanned and accelerated institutional transitions to online and remote teaching have catapulted the issues of access to digital resources, inclusive digital literacy, and pedagogical preparedness into unforeseen prominence, presenting an urgent need to acquire a better understanding of how these systems operate in a multiplex and often under-resourced context. As a result, there is a significant lacuna in the literature regarding the lived experiences of undergraduate students with LMS in rural universities, specifically in the South African context. It is within this backdrop that much research on LMS adoption has been conducted in urban or well-resourced institutions, leaving the co-conspirators of infrastructure, socio-cultural, and pedagogical factors that shape student perceptions within the rural setting largely unexplored. An understanding of these nuanced perspectives is crucial for administrators and educators seeking to enhance teaching and learning, as well as adapt LMS functionalities to meet the specific needs of the rural student population (Lim, 2018). In addressing this gap, the present Lusaka study aims to employ qualitative methods to gain a deep and rich understanding of the perceptions, prospects, and challenges associated with the use of LMS by undergraduate students at the University of Zululand-Land, with reference to a rural university in South Africa. This study thus employs the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). This comprehensive theory explicates user intention through key constructs, including performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003 ). In this way, the theoretical perspective offers a coordinated approach that will accommodate an analysis of how the many different aspects can influence the acceptance and use of LMS among students. By priming student voices and experiences, the study intends to move beyond just a technical analysis of LMS into an analysis of the complex role that the LMS occupies within a particular socio-cultural and institutional ecosystem. These study findings will contribute to the broader conversation on digital equity and inclusive education and provide greater insight relevant to institutional policy, curriculum planning, interim support, and further support implementations. The study will also inform the development of a practicable and equitable digital learning environment conducive to the academic success of all students, particularly those in historically marginalised rural communities. Literature Review The proliferation of digital technologies has irrevocably altered the landscape of higher education, establishing the Learning Management System (LMS) as a cornerstone of modern pedagogy. These platforms have become integral to the administration, delivery, and assessment of academic courses, providing a structured digital environment for teaching and learning (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020 ). The shift towards digital learning, accelerated by the global COVID-19 pandemic, has underscored the critical role of the LMS in maintaining educational continuity and serving a diverse student population with demands for more flexible and accessible learning modalities (Bao, 2020 ; Graham et al., 2019). Considering the rural universities, an LMS is a promise to be deployed strategically to address the longstanding problems related to geography and infrastructure. Given that these institutions are generally less funded than their urban counterparts, physical resource scarcity may exert an impact on the educational experience (Smith & Rahman, 2021 ). Consequently, LMS is often championed as a scalable, cost-effective measure against these scarcities, whereby students receive uniform access to course materials and learning activities that would otherwise not be available to them (Jones & Pimdee, 2017 ). These promises, however, are fraught with challenges that run against each other, the most visible one being the 'digital divide.' According to Bervell and Umar's (2019) systematic review, the lack of reliable internet connectivity and access to modern computing devices remains a key LMS adoption barrier in Sub-Saharan Africa as we are coming toward this infrastructural deficit, whereby it cannot only hinder the student's way to engage with e-learning platforms but will serve to divert greater educational inequality by disadvantaging learners from underfunded backgrounds as a huge hurdle toward digital equity (Selwyn, 2016 ). Significant influences on an LMS's success, other than the material realities of LMS access, are the attitudes of the primary users, mainly students. The extensive literature suggests that students with more positive perceptions of LMS are more likely to develop academic engagement or be actively involved in educational activities (Almaiah et al., 2020 ). Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are two significant determinants for acceptance of the technology (Nguyen, 2019 ). This implies the importance of considering students' experiences because negative perceptions, such as those caused by poor usability or inadequate support, can lead to frustration and disengagement, which entirely counteract the pedagogical benefits of the system (Stolz et al., 2020 ). The 'effort expectancy' from UTAUT tackles exactly this issue, arguing that perceived ease of use is one of the most prominent factors during the actual adoption of technology at the first point of use (Venkatesh et al., 2003 ). Students in rural universities might be among those who have less prior exposure to these types of platforms; hence, the initial hurdle could be high. The feeling of anxiety and insecurity, echoed in "I did not even know how to log in," reflects a sad truth, and the provision of targeted training and support that improves digital literacy to enable all users to benefit from the technology is paramount (Nguyen, 2019 ). Further to all these issues, the capacity of an LMS to be pedagogically effective hinges not on the technology itself, but on how it is incorporated into teaching and learning. From a pedagogical perspective, the LMS applied merely as an archive could turn out to be just a vehicle for depersonalised and superficial study, which cannot nurture critical thinking common to deep learning (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004 ). This also aligns with the UTAUT construct of 'performance expectancy,' whereby students' perceived usefulness of the system is contingent upon its facilitation of active and engaging pedagogical activities. LMS analytics, for example, can display student performance data, which instructors may use to adjust their teaching strategies; however, active use is required (Wang et al., 2021 ). The third construct from the UTAUT model, 'social influence," is likewise especially applicable to the tight-knit environments in rural universities. The influence students feel from their peers and lecturers plays a considerable part in their decision to embrace an LMS (Johnson et al., 2018 ). An informal consensus among lecturers to regularly use LMS for teaching practices or at least for communication suggests the seriousness of the system, which in turn leads to activating student maturity. This further underlines the importance of faculty modelling for students, what constitutes reasonable use for the LMS, and framing student perception of the LMS from that perspective. Somewhat more broadly, the effects of educational technology are not culturally neutral; instead, their adoption and accomplishment demand the involvement of cultural contexts. In the absence of cultural considerations, such as linguistic diversity or accepted pedagogical norms, technology is likely to undergo rejection and low adoption (Cheng et al., 2020). In the multi-faceted South African scenario, informing implementation should be an endeavour to design digital learning environments that ensure their users feel genuine recognition of their diverse lived experiences. The "facilitating conditions" construct of UTAUT highlights that the institutional and technical infrastructure that provides support for LMS use is very crucial. Providing technical support, reliable hardware, and training at rural universities is often challenging due to their limited budgets (Lainjo & Tsmouche, 2023). The digital divide becomes more exacerbated in the absence of these facilitating conditions that facilitate the best design of the LMS. The stark inter-relation between individual perceptions, teaching practices, social influences, and institutional conditions is what the UTAUT model exactly encapsulates (Venkatesh et al., 2003 ). The holistic framework thus makes it a very suitable theoretical lens with which to start the analysis of the multi-faceted dynamics of LMS adoption in rural universities, which ranges from individual beliefs to the higher social structures and institutional support. However, it remains a deficit in the literature at present. To date, with the occurrences and challenges relating to LMS implementations well known, very little rich qualitative research exists which places the lived experiences and voices of undergraduate students in rural South African universities centre-stage. Most existing research is quantitative and techno-centric, thereby abstracting away from the nuanced, local, and situational factors that shape students' realities. This study, hence, stands poised to fill this huge theoretical gap. Through a qualitative inquiry, the study looks beyond generalised assumptions by constructing a deep and contextualised understanding of the ways students at a rural university perceive, experience, and navigate the institutional LMS, with the intention of transforming their collective voice into essential insights that can radically shape the creation of much-needed equitable, efficient, and culturally responsive digital learning strategies, thus advancing the much-needed debate on digital equity in higher education. Results The thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews with some undergraduate students brought out five pivotal themes highlighting the perceptions, challenges, and experiences they faced with the LMS in a rural university context. Theme 1: "I did not even know how to log in": Digital literacy issues and technological confidence A very strong theme emerged from the accounts, and first-year students, especially those from intense rural backgrounds, were emphatic about it: the initial and oftentimes overwhelming challenge of digital literacy. The most common source of trepidation and lack of confidence was the entry hurdle of signing up to use the LMS. One first-year student summed up the prevailing feelings when he said, " I did not even know how to log in at first. I had to ask my roommate to show me everything" (very telling as to the assumed levels of preparedness in ICT use among students from rural areas). These initial hurdles were often cited as especially frustrating and laden with self-doubt. Another participant revealed that "It is not that I do not want to use it, but sometimes I just do not understand how it works. I was scared at first." Such sentiments outweigh simple grievances against LMS adoption and point to bigger concerns of the presence or absence of foundational training in ICT at the university. The students appeared consistent in their claims that their digital literacy had improved gradually, without any formal structured training, but mainly through informal peer support. In these direct experiences are signified some of the critical issues of effort expectancy as per Venkatesh and colleagues' ( 2003 ) Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) that focus heavily on perceived ease of use as the most important factor that would have determined early acceptance of technology. For those with meagre digital skills, the LMS required more effort to be initially engaged, thereby reinforcing the argument that using technology effectively depends on prior possession of skills (Nguyen, 2019 ). These reliance-based experiences among the students are a crucial indication of a gap in institutional support, and findings accentuate studies confirming the extent to which the transition to online platforms can act as a barrier without adequate training (Stolz et al., 2020 ). While many students reported increased competence over time, their initial feelings of anxiety and confusion cemented a wary attitude toward the LMS. The findings suggest a lack of proactive intervention on the part of the institution to address digital literacy-related challenges: institutional negligence constituted a hindrance to initial adoption and, consequently, promoted the feeling of inequity. This highlights the need for rural universities to recognise that digital nativism is not a common trait among their student population and to implement constructive orientation programmes that explicitly address the needs of students with varying digital preparedness levels, thereby forming an equitable and confident user base from the outset. Theme 2: Infrastructural Deficit: An Ever-Present Barricade to the Digital Divide Even those students who could overcome the hurdle of digital literacy were seriously constrained from making consistent, effective use of the LMS due to infrastructural limitations. This theme emerged as the most dominant and frequently raised concern across every interview, painting a sordid picture of the digital divide in scenic rural South Africa. Participants discussed at length the unreliability of the internet connection, power blackouts, and their lack of access to laptops or suitable personal computing devices. In all these cases, these obstacles hindered their ability to make meaningful appointments within the digital learning environment every time they wanted to do so. As one student complained, " Sometimes I walk around campus just to find a spot with a signal to download my notes.” The narratives provided a graphic depiction of the day-to-day woes faced by these students. Especially disadvantaged in this regard were those who lived off-campus and were located in the remotest home villages, with many citing exorbitantly priced mobile data as a significant impediment. Another student elaborated that, " At home, there is no Wi-Fi, and data is expensive ," thereby painting a picture of an intersection between socio-economic factors and digital-accessibility issues. According to the students, the university's computer labs did not provide enough services to meet the demand. One participant expressed dissatisfaction with the "...labs are always full, and I do not have a laptop at home." A scarcity of resources really could place an endangered ribcage on the backside of sharpening inequalities because of those students who had laptops and those who did not. These results significantly reflect the critical relevance of what is considered 'facilitating conditions' within the UTAUT framework (cf. Venkatesh et al., 2003 ). Those infrastructural deficiencies cause an absurd disruption to the full functioning of the LMS, regardless of its design or the motivation of its users. The students' accounts corroborate and so give a view of the plethora of literature situating infrastructural deficiencies as the primary barrier to LMS adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa (Bervell & Umar, 2019 ). Furthermore, their views bring the 'digital divide' into the spotlight, highlighting how it functions as a mechanism of social exclusion in educational settings (Selwyn, 2016 ). This theme, therefore, exposes how the physical realities of infrastructural inequality severely undermine the LMS's prospect of bridging geospatial distances. It implies that policies for digital learning undertaken by universities cannot be separated from much broader intervention policy proposals aiming to redress the digital divide. For rural universities, this means investing heavily in on-campus Wi-Fi, implementing device loan schemes, and engaging in regional lobbying efforts to improve connectivity. Without such probable logistical backing, the LMS could become a weird instrument of perpetuating the very inequities it strives to eliminate (Smith & Rahman, 2021 ). Theme 3: The Pivotal Role of Pedagogical Integration and Lecturer Engagement The students' conception of the LMS's usefulness and power was inextricably linked to the mode of integration of the pedagogical practices employed by lecturers in their pupils' learning. There appeared to be a dichotomy: in the eyes of the students, when the LMS was an interactive and dynamic teaching tool, it was beneficial; but when it was used only as a passive document repository, it was met with apathy or severe frustration. This was not very clear and caused a discontinuous user experience between modules due to its variance in application from one pedagogical outlook to another. The most positive experiences were related to uses that were active and engaging. A student said enthusiastically, "I like when we have online quizzes and get instant feedback," emphasising the usefulness of the LMS in allowing instructors to practice formative assessment and communication promptly. Therein, the platform was perceived to work for the actual enhancement of the learning process, which is in line with existing research establishing the positive impact of technology on student engagement (Almaiah et al., 2020 ). However, students expressed their heavy frustration with the underuse of the LMS. A common complaint was that "Some lecturers just upload PDFs and never come back," treating this system as a 'digital dumping ground' without making any effort to utilise its interactive features. This theme directly relates to UTAUT's performance expectancy construct, which is defined as the extent to which a person believes a system will enhance their job performance (Venkatesh et al., 2003 ). Students' accounts suggest that their view of the LMS as a valuable educational tool was dependent almost entirely on the form of pedagogy implemented by the instructor. The greater the instructors' demonstration of the platform's value by meaningful integration, the greater the students' performance expectancy would be in response. This serves as evidence to strengthen the argument that it is not the tool itself that is intrinsically effective, but rather the pedagogical implementation strategy that determines the effectiveness of educational technology (Johnson et al., 2018 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). Such inconsistency in LMS usage across faculties points to a lack of institutional standardisation and an urgent need for the professional development of faculty. Students repeatedly called for a more uniform approach, one of them suggesting, " If all lecturers used it the same way, it would be easier for us." Therein lies a significant window for enhancement: rural universities need to initiate continuous staff training that equips teachers with pedagogical skills beyond the simple delivery of content, toward the realisation of the collaborative and interactive features of the LMS. Without a sustained approach to pedagogical innovation, the platform's transformational ability will mostly lie dormant. Theme 4: The Power of Social Influence and Peer Learning Dynamics Social considerations, including peer and lecturer guidance and encouragement, significantly influenced the adoption decision and the continued use of the LMS. Social networks became the key means for them in developing confidence and competence, especially for students who initially viewed the technology as intimidating. The prominence of peers was such that many participants attested that it was "a friend or roommate before formally being trained by the university" that first led them to begin excursions with the LMS. In one student's words, " I would really say that I only started using it because my friend showed me ." Once in, students truly valued using LMS collaboration features for discussions and group sessions that will bring them together and help lessen feelings of isolation commonly experienced by dispersed rural students. " We use the forum to discuss assignments. It helps a lot ," one participant asserted, eloquently describing how the platform supports peer learning. However, the awareness and usage of these collaborative features remained scattered; for instance, some admitted that they " did not know there was a discussion board until someone said so ," which points to the lack of organised facilitation from lecturers. These findings lend strong support to the 'social influence' construct of the UTAUT model, according to which an individual's behaviour is influenced by his perception of whether important others think he should use a system (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). Such norms, established by lecturers and peer groups, would be powerful forces in the close-knit social environment of a rural university, encouraging the adoption of technology. Students rely on each other for informal technical support, and they appreciate the LMS features designed to build a community (Johnson et al., 2018 ). This theme uncovers a significant but frequently overlooked opportunity to increase engagement with the LMS. The institution could harness this social power by introducing formal peer mentoring programs and requiring lecturers to craft structured and compulsory group activities that integrate the use of LMS collaborative tools. Such a purposeful pedagogical framework would create the environment for all students to become proficient in the use of these valuable tools; in doing so, it would transition the LMS from a tool predominantly for solitary study into a collaborative learning community platform that will advance both the academic and social life of the university. Theme 5: Dancing Through Cultural Contexts and Attitudinal Dispositions Lastly, students' interaction with the LMS had a strong presence of cultural and attitudinal factors that are largely disregarded in techno-centric implementation models. For some, the transition to online applications has been considered a diversion from the highly regarded way of interacting face-to-face. A student stated, " I prefer face-to-face. Online feels cold," which many would agree with as a sentiment that digital platforms often feel impersonal and alienating, devoid of that relational warmth that physical classrooms inherently provide. This, in turn, implies the necessity of situating the functionality of educational technology within the proper cultural balance that respects local pedagogical norms (Cheng et al., 2020). Language had emerged as a blocking factor for several students. According to a participant's account, " Sometimes the instructions are in English, and I do not understand." As in the South African multilingual context, the monolingual nature of many digital platforms can pose significant obstacles to comprehension and participation, particularly for students who are not native English speakers. This realisation highlights the need for remedial approaches for designing educational technology from cultural and linguistic perspectives, a matter that is vital to digital equity. Further compounded by such attitudes and cultural predispositions were feelings of exclusion, particularly by students hailing from communities with minimal exposure to technology. " In my village, we do not use computers. I was scared at first ," indeed betrays a deep-rooted lack of confidence grounded in much larger socio-economic and geographic disparities. The above statement brings to light the glaring significance of" perceived relevance" and "cultural alignment" as critical acceptance determinants of a technology by the marginalised sections of society, iPhone (Almaiah et al., 2020 ). These students' propositions for a culturally inclusive induction and peer mentoring from their own backgrounds address this pressing need. This theme thus reveals the fact that a combination of mainstream technical and universal approaches to LMS implementation will not suffice. It, hence, offers strong backing toward the argument that educational technologies would be most effective if embedded in a framework that encloses the local culture, local language, and students' lived realities (Selwyn, 2016 ). By bringing these student voices to the fore, the study challenges the notion of a one-size-fits-all solution. It highlights the critical need for institutional strategies that are not only technologically robust but also culturally sensitive and contextually aware. This approach is fundamental to creating a digital learning environment that is not only effective but also truly inclusive and equitable. Discussion This study aimed to grasp the perceptions, challenges, and prospects of Learning Management System (LMS) adoption by undergraduate students in a rural South African university. With the focus on the lived experiences of that often-marginalised demographic, the findings offer a nuanced and critical standpoint, revealing the complex web of factors that mediate the efficacy of educational technology. The emergent themes resonate with and affirm the main propositions of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) while also enriching the model by embedding it into the everyday socio-economic and infrastructural realities of the rural context. This discussion thus synthesises the findings with interpretive attempts informed by the literature and the study's theoretical framework. One central and somewhat acute finding is that pre-existing digital literacy strongly informs students' initial engagement with LMS. The candid admission "I did not even know how to log in" acts as a synecdoche that encapsulates some of the anxieties and very practical impediments experienced by a large section of the student body. The finding, thus, aligns with the construct of effort expectancy from the UTAUT model; effort expectancy relates to how easy one perceives the use of a system to be, and it has primarily been seen as a vital factor in accepting a given technology early on (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003 ). In the broader sense, for students who hail from under-resourced rural areas, the effort is even more profound, encompassing all emotional aspects while challenging the deeply entrenched assumption that all young folks are innately digitally fluent. Another striking finding pertains to what the students told us about the nature of the trials and tribulations of technology adoption: informal learning and peer-support networks helped to bridge the gap, but not institutional training. While this circumstance portrays an admirable spirit of resilience and collaborative agency on the students' part, it represents a glaring failure on the institution's part. All that these students are oppressed by their different learning needs remains unaddressed. The institution has decided to disregard this issue, giving further impetus to advantaging those who have social capital in the computer jargon (Nguyen, 2019 ; Stolz et al., 2020 ). Albeit worthy of praise, this approach has questioned the institution's role in fostering Digital Literacy amongst its student body. Therefore, there is an impassioned cry from literature for explicit training and support mechanisms that culminate in users' ability to interact with such educational technologies during the disruption of their current educational modes to online (Nguyen, 2019 ; Stolz et al., 2020 ). In terms of 'facilitating conditions,' the study clearly illustrates, albeit starkly, that the absence thereof severely limits an LMS. Accounts from the students on unstable internet connections, exorbitant data costs, and inequities in access to computing devices create an obvious and strong portrayal of the concept of digital divide. These infrastructural inequities, as espoused by Bervell and Umar ( 2019 ), are flagged as the key inhibitors of LMS acceptance in Sub-Saharan Africa and as a separate set of factors with each demanding the full attention of anyone considering addressing the problem of LMS implementation; they are not mere nuisances but rather fundamental barriers that hinder equal participation. However, according to the student informants at this university, the on-campus facilities, being too few and too stretched, are oblivious to what looked like distant disparities on the outside. This infrastructural accommodation has considerable implications for digital equity. As posited by Selwyn ( 2016 ), when educational technologies are implemented within contexts of inequality, they run the risk of exacerbating, rather than ameliorating, existing socio-economic disparities. Considering the findings of this study, it is evident that students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds are further impeded. Therefore, the argument from the earlier literature that LMS is supposed to empower access to education (Jones & Pimdee, 2017 ) can only stand if there is a supporting infrastructure that assists in deploying the system. The absence of an accessible infrastructure morphs the entire LMS system into a vehicle of exclusion. Students' perspectives on the value of LMS were inextricably linked to how their lecturers incorporated it into their teaching. This finding clearly corresponds to the UTAUT construct of 'performance expectancy,' which concerns a user's belief that a system will enhance their abilities to perform activities (Venkatesh et al., 2003 ). Distinct narratives indicated that when lecturers used the LMS as an interactive tool for quizzes, feedback, and discussions, students perceived it as a very positive contributor to their learning experience, a finding supported by Almaiah et al. ( 2020 ). As Johnson et al. ( 2018 ) suggest, this finding highlights the importance of active engagement strategies in learning through technology. The LMS, conversely, was a source for frustration and disengagement when used as a digital dumping ground for irrelevant PDF documents. Such inconsistent application of the LMS across faculties and modules has indicated no cohesive institutional strategy behind its use in teaching and learning. It aligns with the concerns raised by Garrison and Kanuka ( 2004 ) that, without a related pedagogical change, digital platforms may facilitate a superficial form of learning. These students not only want standardisation but also want lecturer training that focuses more on pedagogical innovation as opposed to technical know-how (Wang et al., 2021 ). The strength of 'social influence,' yet another core UTAUT construct, was demonstrated in the tightly knit community of the rural university. Participants reported that, in many instances, they were initially motivated to engage with the LMS through the encouragement of their peers and lecturers. This finding supports the assertion that, in environments where there is a shared sense of community, social norms become a predominant factor in determining behavioural intention (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). Students also used collaborative tools, such as discussion forums, to diminish feelings of isolation, highlighting the social dimension of their learning experience and the potential of an LMS to develop a sense of community. However, the full value of these socialisation and collaboration features could rarely be realised due to poor communication about them and their inconsistent facilitation by some lecturers. This represents a missed opportunity. In an environment where students may already feel geographically and socially isolated, the building capacities of an LMS for communities are not simply a secondary perk but, indeed, a core component of a supportive and inclusive educational environment. An intentional, structured integration of collaborative learning within curricula would go a long way to improving students' social and academic experiences. This study also sheds light on the importance of cultural context, which is often omitted in universalist models of technology adoption. Students' preference for face-to-face interaction and perceptions of online learning as "cold" speak to established pedagogical norms and the high value placed on relational learning. Cheng et al. (2020) postulate that educational technology should be adapted to align with the cultural context of its users; otherwise, it invites resistance. Furthermore, the linguistic barriers faced by some students highlight a serious dimension of digital equity: a "one-size-fits-all" monolingual approach will not work in a country as diverse as South Africa. The synthesis of these findings clearly demonstrates that the adoption and effective application of an LMS in a rural university is not a simple technological problem but a complex sociotechnical phenomenon. The four primary constructs of UTAUT provide a conceptual vehicle for exploring that complexity; however, the qualitative data reveal the intimate nexus between these factors. Poor providing conditions (infrastructure) increase the level of effort expectancy (difficulty of use), while having a lack of institutional strategy (facilitating condition) leads to piecemeal pedagogic integration, which further lowers performance expectancy. Social influence is a vital mediating factor, but it cannot make up for these structural and pedagogic deficiencies. An outcome of such a marginalised interpretation, intended to increase the voice of undergraduate students, saw their assertion refuting the techno-optimistic narratives that considered the LMS as a panacea for the challenges associated with rural higher education. Alternative ideas, both critical and nuanced, have formed the basis of this study's articulation, which has the utmost relevance for theory, policy, and practice. It calls for an institution-wide holistic strategy with digital equity as a foremost concern, starting from the provision of foundational digital literacy for all students, concurrent remedies for infrastructural disparities, and sustained professional development for lecturers in digital pedagogy. It is only through a comprehensive, multi-pronged, and equity-centred approach that the LMS can be truly positioned as an agent of change for all its students. Implications of the Study Findings from this qualitative study, which focused on the voices and lived experiences of undergraduate students, have significant implications for policies, teaching practices, and future research related to the use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) in rural higher education. Beyond mere technical considerations of the LMS, this study provides a nuanced, context-specific understanding of the impediments and opportunities for digital learning, serving as a counterbalance to techno-optimistic narratives that can overlook the profound challenges of digital equity. Implications for Institutional Policy and Strategy Foremost among the implications of the study is the compelling need for rural higher education leadership to reconceptualise digital equity not as a peripheral concern, but as a core institutional strategy. This implies that the implementation of an LMS cannot be carried out in a fragmented manner, such as purchasing software. Instead, a digital learning policy ought to be developed, which explicitly acknowledges that a digital divide exists prior to this digital learning strategy and that resources will be mobilised towards abating it (Bervell & Umar, 2019 ). This requires a shift from thinking of rural learners as instances of deficit to actively building a digital environment that is inclusive and supportive of their needs. This weighty commitment must thus ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to 'facilitating conditions,' which are essential for the acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003 ). From accounts of infrastructural disintegration, there is one policy imperative: high on the institutional agenda must be the establishment of a sound and dependable technological infrastructure, which would benefit several purposes. Improving Wi-Fi coverage in these campuses is just one of many such concerns. Inventive strategies such as device loan schemes and decentralised access points merit exploration, as these would alleviate the challenges faced by students who are remote either geographically or economically. Literature has emphasised that without such support, the infrastructure upon which the enhancement of LMS facilities depends is severely limited (Jones & Pimdee, 2017 ; Smith & Rahman, 2021 ). Implications for Practice Beyond high-level policy, the findings highlight a series of crucial implications for everyday institutional practice. The widespread anxiety and lack of confidence expressed by students, including the admission, "I did not even know how to log in," shatters the myth that all students are inherently digitally fluent. This directly impacts how student support services should operate: institutions must provide mandatory, structured digital literacy programs, especially to first-year students and those from backgrounds with scant technological exposure. These programs should be basic yet continuous, aimed at providing students with the confidence and know-how to operate the digital learning environment adequately —a need confirmed by the difficulties associated with the shift to online learning (Stolz et al., 2020 ). In addition, the inconsistent use of LMS in teaching by some lecturers highlights the necessity for ongoing professional development. These results imply that academia training should shift from merely teaching practical use towards embracing pedagogical innovations. Academic staff need to be assisted in making learning engaging, interactive, and cooperative using LMS's full capabilities to maximise their students' 'performance expectancy' (Almaiah et al., 2020 ; Johnson et al., 2018 ). Everyone needs to pitch in promoting the use of LMS as a pedagogical tool, not just as a digital library for class materials, to energise its full potential in enhancing student learning. Garrison & Kanuka, 2004 ). The research further made evident how strong and pervasive, although often informal, the 'social influence' factor is in affecting students in their adoption of LMS. The reliance on peers for technical assistance, coupled with a positive desire for the best collaborative tools, presents institutional practice with significant opportunities to explore. It would be worthwhile for an institution to formalise and utilise these informal support networks, all the better by creating structured peer mentoring programmes on one level. On the other hand, lecturers could be encouraged to identify and actively develop collaborative projects integrated with the LMS to enhance these project features. Such deliberate alignment would build students' digital competencies and address the isolation that is often found to characterise the rural university experience, thereby reinforcing the establishment's academic strength and social fabric. Finally, the findings on cultural and linguistic barriers demand a much more culturally responsive approach to digital learning design and implementation. The perception of online learning as "cold" and the challenges posed by a monolingual interface underscore that one approach alone will not suffice. Institutions may want to investigate how they provide support in several languages through the LMS and offer training to the academic staff, to help them make digital content culturally inclusive. This resounds with the argument that educational technologies must have room to reflect the cultural backgrounds of their users to foster a feeling of belonging, rather than further alienating already marginalised students (Cheng et al., 2020). Implications for Future Research This study offers a rich snapshot of rural South African students' experiences, which opens the door to new horizons of research possibilities. In the first place, it suggests that even if UTAUT is a useful analytical tool, its constructs are deeply imbued and shaped by the socio-economic and infrastructural realities of the rural context. Future research may seek to extend or adapt existing acceptance models of technology to better account for the repercussions of the digital divide in resource-constrained settings, to develop a more context-sensitive theoretical model. In the second instance, whereas this study offers a thick description of how students perceive their experiences at a single point in time, it calls for longitudinal studies tracking the changes and patterns in the evolution of students' digital literacy, confidence, and engagement with LMS throughout their academic careers. These studies could offer critical input into addressing the impacts of institutional interventions and shaping the developmental trajectory in terms of graduate skills. Lastly, there exists an urgent call for further comparative qualitative studies on different rural institutions in South Africa and beyond. Those studies could help identify broader patterns and best practices, as well as contextual factors unique to rural settings that influence the implementation of educational technology. By continuing to amplify student voices and prioritising digital equity, future research is already playing a vital role in ensuring that the digital transformation of higher education achieves its goals successfully and equitably. Conclusion This study undertook a critical assessment of LMS implementation in a South African rural university, foregrounding the lived experiences of undergraduate students to illuminate the complex interplay of infrastructural, pedagogical, and socio-cultural challenges shaping digital learning. The findings show that for many students, digital engagement begins not with empowerment but with uncertainty and exclusion, mainly due to low digital literacy, inadequate infrastructural support, uneven pedagogical integration, and peer-reliant assessment. Themes concerning effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, performance expectancy, and social influence are, in the study, shown to be deeply influenced by context-specific inequities through the lens of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Presented is a rich bottom-up counter-narrative to techno-optimistic assumptions, thereby challenging universalist discourses of educational technology and underscoring the limits of techno-solutionism in resource-constrained settings. Worth mentioning is that while the researchers duly recognise the study's limitations as a qualitative case study, it nevertheless stands as a worthy addition to the literature on digital equity and educational technology by extending the UTAUT framework and considering the human element in digital adoption. On a final note, the research suggests that higher education stakeholders should pause their current focus and adopt context-sensitive, inclusive strategies that prioritise enabling each student to engage at the most basic level, starting with something as simple as learning how to log in. Declarations Clinical Trial Number Not Applicable Data availability Data will be made available upon request from the corresponding author. Funding Not Applicable Author information Author and Affiliation Department of Curriculum/Education Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Edgewood Campus, Durban, South Africa Oluwatoyin Ayodele Ajani Contributions OAA contributed to the study conception, design, material preparation, data collection, analysis, draft of the manuscript, and read and approved the final manuscript. Corresponding author Correspondence to Oluwatoyin Ayodele Ajani. Ethics declarations Ethics approval and informed consent The ethical aspects of this research were reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Zululand with the Ethical Clearance No UZ-REC 0691-008 Dept 2024/11. Prior to participation, all individuals were fully informed of the study's nature and their rights, and written informed consent was obtained. The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines governing research involving human participants, as outlined by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Zululand, and in adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent to publish Not Applicable Competing interests The author declares no competing interests. References Almaiah MA, Al-Khasawneh A, Althunibat A. Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educ Inform Technol. 2020;25:5261–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10219-y . Alvi M. (2016). A manual for selecting sampling techniques in research. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 70218. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/70218/ Bao W. COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Hum Behav Emerg Technol. 2020;2(2):113–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191 . Bervell B, Umar IN. A decade of LMS acceptance and adoption research in Sub-Saharan African higher education: A systematic review from 2004 to 2018. Educ Inform Technol. 2019;24(6):3593–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09945-z . Bozkurt A, Sharma RC. Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian J Distance Educ. 2020;15(1):i–vi. http://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/462 . Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Sage; 2014. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Sage; 2017. Garrison DR, Kanuka H. Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High Educ. 2004;7(2):95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001 . Ghavifekr S, Rosdy WAW. Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. Int J Res Educ Sci (IJRES). 2015;1(2):175–91. https://www.ijres.net/index.php/ijres/article/view/45 . Johnson L, Becker A, Estrada S, V., Freeman A. NMC Horizon Report: 2018 Higher Education Edition. EDUCAUSE; 2018. Jones C, Pimdee P. Digital tools for seamless learning. Contemp Educational Technol. 2017;8(1):18–34. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6199 . Nguyen T. Digital transformation in higher education: A framework for assessment and improvement. J Res Technol Educ. 2019;51(4):409–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1646742 . Selwyn N. Digital downsides: Exploring university students' negative engagements with digital technology. Teach High Educ. 2016;21(8):1006–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1213229 . Smith J, Rahman A. Implementation of cloud-based learning management systems in developing countries: Challenges and prospects. Education Tech Research Dev. 2021;69:85–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09885-x . Stolz SA, Barber M, Kizilcec RF. Challenges in transitioning to online learning environments in the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Learn. 2020;24(4):6–21. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2335 . Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 . Wang Y, Hao L, Platt LS, Raile ANW. Examining the role of technology in learning: An evaluation of e-learning systems. Comput Educ. 2021;128:63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.013 . Zheng L, Zhao Z, McMahon G. Technology-facilitated learning in higher education: Dimensions of student-staff engagement. Comput Educ. 2020;144:103714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103714 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7225403","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":542267035,"identity":"0b525d6a-00a0-4e48-9a7c-84fa7e73b490","order_by":0,"name":"Oluwatoyin Ayodele Ajani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of KwaZulu-Natal","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Oluwatoyin","middleName":"Ayodele","lastName":"Ajani","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-27 09:38:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7225403/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7225403/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95976029,"identity":"eec7e65b-d034-4ebc-ba0a-62db1b2b0b82","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-15 09:33:34","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":40195,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"IDidntknowhowrevised.editedSept.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7225403/v1/86a6f6298a097e33d396ac36.docx"},{"id":96245543,"identity":"a05b4a55-88ec-48cc-ad2f-718a62bd512d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:20:55","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3484,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"af735b703be64bc29fb6a7ba0292308c.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7225403/v1/1cadd6466e590cfd5d6756b3.json"},{"id":95976030,"identity":"c4e0ced2-f70a-42c2-bd8f-7eca9140b1ca","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-15 09:33:34","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":82748,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"af735b703be64bc29fb6a7ba0292308c1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7225403/v1/66e70b4284658c4de791b3ac.xml"},{"id":95976034,"identity":"972668c7-8f2c-4e77-8742-bf0e5b4d42a4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-15 09:33:34","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":80885,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"af735b703be64bc29fb6a7ba0292308c1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7225403/v1/695bcaa15371ba01124d76f3.xml"},{"id":95976032,"identity":"11c9c382-9580-49bc-8b28-16405c77bfa1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-15 09:33:34","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":86716,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7225403/v1/e67b8458806fb65d2b308883.html"},{"id":100787869,"identity":"a18d431f-44fb-40fe-a434-991b5f0e5887","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 12:04:20","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":600293,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7225403/v1/6e56bbf8-3317-4b7e-895c-caf0b2dc61b4.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Student Experiences of Digital Literacy and Learning Management System Adoption in Rural Higher Education","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe digital technology integration is nowadays the defining feature of the current pedagogical landscape, before it even touches upon the physical logistics of the delivery and administration of higher education across the globe. Central to this paradigm shift lie the LMSs and the very institutional policy surrounding them, which were sometimes considered just a set of tools (Bozkurt \u0026amp; Sharma, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Moodle, Blackboard, and Canvas are considered generic software equipped to provide a structured digital milieu for generating, delivering, and assessing educational content. LMS orchestrates teaching and learning as the education systems navigate toward a digitally oriented society, rendering it increasingly essential (Ghavifekr \u0026amp; Rosdy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). While LMSs are employed worldwide, universities in more rural areas can expect them to have profound and immediate applicability for their circumstances. These institutions are regularly faced with the trinity of geographical remoteness, low funding, and poor infrastructure, all of which have a considerable toll on education quality and accessibility (Smith \u0026amp; Rahman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In this situation, LMS offers solutions that are the antithesis of brick-and-mortar edifices: scalable and flexible LMS solutions overturn geographical and time limitations by providing anytime-and-anywhere access to educational resources that bolster learning (Jones \u0026amp; Pimdee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the transformative nature of an LMS remains unrealised if that implementation is embroiled in key hindrances, especially within rural contexts. Arguably foremost among these is a persistent digital divide, to the extent that rapidly changing developments in internet connectivity skills and access to modern computer hardware significantly hamper any worthwhile digital teaching initiative (Bervell \u0026amp; Umar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This technological divide does not merely hinder the operational aspect of the LMS. However, it has far-reaching implications concerning educational equity at the cost of creating segregated learning settings, whereby students who enjoy better resources acquire an edge over those who are less privileged. More than just issues of infrastructure constitute the prerequisites for the success of an LMS; the students' perceptions and attitudes are key to this success. A substantial body of literature agrees that when students hold positive perceptions of an LMS, they are more likely to engage and thus perform better academically (Almaiah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Factors conducive to willingness to accept and actively use an LMS include such things as usability, accessibility, and actual contribution to the learning process (Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). By the same token, however, negative perceptions, often associated with poorly designed systems or the lack of proper support, may lead to user frustration and a loss of interest, thereby impeding rather than facilitating the intended educational function of the system.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe use of LMSs raises not just technical but also tremendous pedagogical questions. A pertinent concern has been raised by critics regarding the depersonalisation of learning via digital means, arguing that this approach reduces learners' ability to engage in higher-order thinking and deep learning, which are nurtured more effectively through conventional teacher-student interaction (Garrison \u0026amp; Kanuka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). The danger remains that an LMS becomes little more than an electronic library for course materials, rather than an active, collaborative environment. That is, for an LMS to be beneficial, its implementation must be coupled with sound instructional objectives and active learning methods that require genuine involvement (Johnson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). A juxtaposition of technical, perceptual, and pedagogical challenges inevitably affects social justice. Technology-reliant education can only worsen existing socio-economic discrepancies, particularly for those students who lack access to broadband and appropriate technology in their domestic environment (Selwyn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Considering South Africa's oppressive history of social inequalities, it is concerning how such a technological divide can further disperse educational opportunities. Thus, the aim should be neither the inculcation of technology for technology\u0026rsquo;s sake nor the mere implementation of digital technology, but instead geared towards inclusive intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese issues have since been brought into sharp focus with the rapid and emergency switch to remote online learning brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has forced many rural universities and colleges to adopt or substantially expand their use of LMS in a short time to keep teaching going (Bao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These unplanned and accelerated institutional transitions to online and remote teaching have catapulted the issues of access to digital resources, inclusive digital literacy, and pedagogical preparedness into unforeseen prominence, presenting an urgent need to acquire a better understanding of how these systems operate in a multiplex and often under-resourced context. As a result, there is a significant lacuna in the literature regarding the lived experiences of undergraduate students with LMS in rural universities, specifically in the South African context. It is within this backdrop that much research on LMS adoption has been conducted in urban or well-resourced institutions, leaving the co-conspirators of infrastructure, socio-cultural, and pedagogical factors that shape student perceptions within the rural setting largely unexplored. An understanding of these nuanced perspectives is crucial for administrators and educators seeking to enhance teaching and learning, as well as adapt LMS functionalities to meet the specific needs of the rural student population (Lim, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addressing this gap, the present Lusaka study aims to employ qualitative methods to gain a deep and rich understanding of the perceptions, prospects, and challenges associated with the use of LMS by undergraduate students at the University of Zululand-Land, with reference to a rural university in South Africa. This study thus employs the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). This comprehensive theory explicates user intention through key constructs, including performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). In this way, the theoretical perspective offers a coordinated approach that will accommodate an analysis of how the many different aspects can influence the acceptance and use of LMS among students. By priming student voices and experiences, the study intends to move beyond just a technical analysis of LMS into an analysis of the complex role that the LMS occupies within a particular socio-cultural and institutional ecosystem. These study findings will contribute to the broader conversation on digital equity and inclusive education and provide greater insight relevant to institutional policy, curriculum planning, interim support, and further support implementations. The study will also inform the development of a practicable and equitable digital learning environment conducive to the academic success of all students, particularly those in historically marginalised rural communities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe proliferation of digital technologies has irrevocably altered the landscape of higher education, establishing the Learning Management System (LMS) as a cornerstone of modern pedagogy. These platforms have become integral to the administration, delivery, and assessment of academic courses, providing a structured digital environment for teaching and learning (Bozkurt \u0026amp; Sharma, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The shift towards digital learning, accelerated by the global COVID-19 pandemic, has underscored the critical role of the LMS in maintaining educational continuity and serving a diverse student population with demands for more flexible and accessible learning modalities (Bao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Graham et al., 2019). Considering the rural universities, an LMS is a promise to be deployed strategically to address the longstanding problems related to geography and infrastructure. Given that these institutions are generally less funded than their urban counterparts, physical resource scarcity may exert an impact on the educational experience (Smith \u0026amp; Rahman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, LMS is often championed as a scalable, cost-effective measure against these scarcities, whereby students receive uniform access to course materials and learning activities that would otherwise not be available to them (Jones \u0026amp; Pimdee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese promises, however, are fraught with challenges that run against each other, the most visible one being the 'digital divide.' According to Bervell and Umar's (2019) systematic review, the lack of reliable internet connectivity and access to modern computing devices remains a key LMS adoption barrier in Sub-Saharan Africa as we are coming toward this infrastructural deficit, whereby it cannot only hinder the student's way to engage with e-learning platforms but will serve to divert greater educational inequality by disadvantaging learners from underfunded backgrounds as a huge hurdle toward digital equity (Selwyn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Significant influences on an LMS's success, other than the material realities of LMS access, are the attitudes of the primary users, mainly students. The extensive literature suggests that students with more positive perceptions of LMS are more likely to develop academic engagement or be actively involved in educational activities (Almaiah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are two significant determinants for acceptance of the technology (Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This implies the importance of considering students' experiences because negative perceptions, such as those caused by poor usability or inadequate support, can lead to frustration and disengagement, which entirely counteract the pedagogical benefits of the system (Stolz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe 'effort expectancy' from UTAUT tackles exactly this issue, arguing that perceived ease of use is one of the most prominent factors during the actual adoption of technology at the first point of use (Venkatesh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Students in rural universities might be among those who have less prior exposure to these types of platforms; hence, the initial hurdle could be high. The feeling of anxiety and insecurity, echoed in \"I did not even know how to log in,\" reflects a sad truth, and the provision of targeted training and support that improves digital literacy to enable all users to benefit from the technology is paramount (Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Further to all these issues, the capacity of an LMS to be pedagogically effective hinges not on the technology itself, but on how it is incorporated into teaching and learning. From a pedagogical perspective, the LMS applied merely as an archive could turn out to be just a vehicle for depersonalised and superficial study, which cannot nurture critical thinking common to deep learning (Garrison \u0026amp; Kanuka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). This also aligns with the UTAUT construct of 'performance expectancy,' whereby students' perceived usefulness of the system is contingent upon its facilitation of active and engaging pedagogical activities. LMS analytics, for example, can display student performance data, which instructors may use to adjust their teaching strategies; however, active use is required (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third construct from the UTAUT model, 'social influence,\" is likewise especially applicable to the tight-knit environments in rural universities. The influence students feel from their peers and lecturers plays a considerable part in their decision to embrace an LMS (Johnson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). An informal consensus among lecturers to regularly use LMS for teaching practices or at least for communication suggests the seriousness of the system, which in turn leads to activating student maturity. This further underlines the importance of faculty modelling for students, what constitutes reasonable use for the LMS, and framing student perception of the LMS from that perspective. Somewhat more broadly, the effects of educational technology are not culturally neutral; instead, their adoption and accomplishment demand the involvement of cultural contexts. In the absence of cultural considerations, such as linguistic diversity or accepted pedagogical norms, technology is likely to undergo rejection and low adoption (Cheng et al., 2020). In the multi-faceted South African scenario, informing implementation should be an endeavour to design digital learning environments that ensure their users feel genuine recognition of their diverse lived experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \"facilitating conditions\" construct of UTAUT highlights that the institutional and technical infrastructure that provides support for LMS use is very crucial. Providing technical support, reliable hardware, and training at rural universities is often challenging due to their limited budgets (Lainjo \u0026amp; Tsmouche, 2023). The digital divide becomes more exacerbated in the absence of these facilitating conditions that facilitate the best design of the LMS. The stark inter-relation between individual perceptions, teaching practices, social influences, and institutional conditions is what the UTAUT model exactly encapsulates (Venkatesh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). The holistic framework thus makes it a very suitable theoretical lens with which to start the analysis of the multi-faceted dynamics of LMS adoption in rural universities, which ranges from individual beliefs to the higher social structures and institutional support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, it remains a deficit in the literature at present. To date, with the occurrences and challenges relating to LMS implementations well known, very little rich qualitative research exists which places the lived experiences and voices of undergraduate students in rural South African universities centre-stage. Most existing research is quantitative and techno-centric, thereby abstracting away from the nuanced, local, and situational factors that shape students' realities. This study, hence, stands poised to fill this huge theoretical gap. Through a qualitative inquiry, the study looks beyond generalised assumptions by constructing a deep and contextualised understanding of the ways students at a rural university perceive, experience, and navigate the institutional LMS, with the intention of transforming their collective voice into essential insights that can radically shape the creation of much-needed equitable, efficient, and culturally responsive digital learning strategies, thus advancing the much-needed debate on digital equity in higher education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews with some undergraduate students brought out five pivotal themes highlighting the perceptions, challenges, and experiences they faced with the LMS in a rural university context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTheme 1: \"I did not even know how to log in\": Digital literacy issues and technological confidence\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA very strong theme emerged from the accounts, and first-year students, especially those from intense rural backgrounds, were emphatic about it: the initial and oftentimes overwhelming challenge of digital literacy. The most common source of trepidation and lack of confidence was the entry hurdle of signing up to use the LMS. One first-year student summed up the prevailing feelings when he said, \"\u003cem\u003eI did not even know how to log in at first. I had to ask my roommate to show me everything\"\u003c/em\u003e (very telling as to the assumed levels of preparedness in ICT use among students from rural areas). These initial hurdles were often cited as especially frustrating and laden with self-doubt. Another participant revealed that \u003cem\u003e\"It is not that I do not want to use it, but sometimes I just do not understand how it works. I was scared at first.\"\u003c/em\u003e Such sentiments outweigh simple grievances against LMS adoption and point to bigger concerns of the presence or absence of foundational training in ICT at the university. The students appeared consistent in their claims that their digital literacy had improved gradually, without any formal structured training, but mainly through informal peer support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn these direct experiences are signified some of the critical issues of effort expectancy as per Venkatesh and colleagues' (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) that focus heavily on perceived ease of use as the most important factor that would have determined early acceptance of technology. For those with meagre digital skills, the LMS required more effort to be initially engaged, thereby reinforcing the argument that using technology effectively depends on prior possession of skills (Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). These reliance-based experiences among the students are a crucial indication of a gap in institutional support, and findings accentuate studies confirming the extent to which the transition to online platforms can act as a barrier without adequate training (Stolz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). While many students reported increased competence over time, their initial feelings of anxiety and confusion cemented a wary attitude toward the LMS. The findings suggest a lack of proactive intervention on the part of the institution to address digital literacy-related challenges: institutional negligence constituted a hindrance to initial adoption and, consequently, promoted the feeling of inequity. This highlights the need for rural universities to recognise that digital nativism is not a common trait among their student population and to implement constructive orientation programmes that explicitly address the needs of students with varying digital preparedness levels, thereby forming an equitable and confident user base from the outset.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheme 2: Infrastructural Deficit: An Ever-Present Barricade to the Digital Divide\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEven those students who could overcome the hurdle of digital literacy were seriously constrained from making consistent, effective use of the LMS due to infrastructural limitations. This theme emerged as the most dominant and frequently raised concern across every interview, painting a sordid picture of the digital divide in scenic rural South Africa. Participants discussed at length the unreliability of the internet connection, power blackouts, and their lack of access to laptops or suitable personal computing devices. In all these cases, these obstacles hindered their ability to make meaningful appointments within the digital learning environment every time they wanted to do so. As one student complained, \"\u003cem\u003eSometimes I walk around campus just to find a spot with a signal to download my notes.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e The narratives provided a graphic depiction of the day-to-day woes faced by these students. Especially disadvantaged in this regard were those who lived off-campus and were located in the remotest home villages, with many citing exorbitantly priced mobile data as a significant impediment. Another student elaborated that, \"\u003cem\u003eAt home, there is no Wi-Fi, and data is expensive\u003c/em\u003e,\" thereby painting a picture of an intersection between socio-economic factors and digital-accessibility issues. According to the students, the university's computer labs did not provide enough services to meet the demand. One participant expressed dissatisfaction with the \u003cem\u003e\"...labs are always full, and I do not have a laptop at home.\"\u003c/em\u003e A scarcity of resources really could place an endangered ribcage on the backside of sharpening inequalities because of those students who had laptops and those who did not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese results significantly reflect the critical relevance of what is considered 'facilitating conditions' within the UTAUT framework (cf. Venkatesh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Those infrastructural deficiencies cause an absurd disruption to the full functioning of the LMS, regardless of its design or the motivation of its users. The students' accounts corroborate and so give a view of the plethora of literature situating infrastructural deficiencies as the primary barrier to LMS adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa (Bervell \u0026amp; Umar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, their views bring the 'digital divide' into the spotlight, highlighting how it functions as a mechanism of social exclusion in educational settings (Selwyn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This theme, therefore, exposes how the physical realities of infrastructural inequality severely undermine the LMS's prospect of bridging geospatial distances. It implies that policies for digital learning undertaken by universities cannot be separated from much broader intervention policy proposals aiming to redress the digital divide. For rural universities, this means investing heavily in on-campus Wi-Fi, implementing device loan schemes, and engaging in regional lobbying efforts to improve connectivity. Without such probable logistical backing, the LMS could become a weird instrument of perpetuating the very inequities it strives to eliminate (Smith \u0026amp; Rahman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheme 3: The Pivotal Role of Pedagogical Integration and Lecturer Engagement\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe students' conception of the LMS's usefulness and power was inextricably linked to the mode of integration of the pedagogical practices employed by lecturers in their pupils' learning. There appeared to be a dichotomy: in the eyes of the students, when the LMS was an interactive and dynamic teaching tool, it was beneficial; but when it was used only as a passive document repository, it was met with apathy or severe frustration. This was not very clear and caused a discontinuous user experience between modules due to its variance in application from one pedagogical outlook to another. The most positive experiences were related to uses that were active and engaging. A student said enthusiastically, \u003cem\u003e\"I like when we have online quizzes and get instant feedback,\"\u003c/em\u003e emphasising the usefulness of the LMS in allowing instructors to practice formative assessment and communication promptly. Therein, the platform was perceived to work for the actual enhancement of the learning process, which is in line with existing research establishing the positive impact of technology on student engagement (Almaiah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, students expressed their heavy frustration with the underuse of the LMS. A common complaint was that \u003cem\u003e\"Some lecturers just upload PDFs and never come back,\"\u003c/em\u003e treating this system as a 'digital dumping ground' without making any effort to utilise its interactive features.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis theme directly relates to UTAUT's performance expectancy construct, which is defined as the extent to which a person believes a system will enhance their job performance (Venkatesh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Students' accounts suggest that their view of the LMS as a valuable educational tool was dependent almost entirely on the form of pedagogy implemented by the instructor. The greater the instructors' demonstration of the platform's value by meaningful integration, the greater the students' performance expectancy would be in response. This serves as evidence to strengthen the argument that it is not the tool itself that is intrinsically effective, but rather the pedagogical implementation strategy that determines the effectiveness of educational technology (Johnson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Such inconsistency in LMS usage across faculties points to a lack of institutional standardisation and an urgent need for the professional development of faculty. Students repeatedly called for a more uniform approach, one of them suggesting, \"\u003cem\u003eIf all lecturers used it the same way, it would be easier for us.\"\u003c/em\u003e Therein lies a significant window for enhancement: rural universities need to initiate continuous staff training that equips teachers with pedagogical skills beyond the simple delivery of content, toward the realisation of the collaborative and interactive features of the LMS. Without a sustained approach to pedagogical innovation, the platform's transformational ability will mostly lie dormant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheme 4: The Power of Social Influence and Peer Learning Dynamics\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial considerations, including peer and lecturer guidance and encouragement, significantly influenced the adoption decision and the continued use of the LMS. Social networks became the key means for them in developing confidence and competence, especially for students who initially viewed the technology as intimidating. The prominence of peers was such that many participants attested that it was \"a friend or roommate before formally being trained by the university\" that first led them to begin excursions with the LMS. In one student's words, \"\u003cem\u003eI would really say that I only started using it because my friend showed me\u003c/em\u003e.\" Once in, students truly valued using LMS collaboration features for discussions and group sessions that will bring them together and help lessen feelings of isolation commonly experienced by dispersed rural students. \"\u003cem\u003eWe use the forum to discuss assignments. It helps a lot\u003c/em\u003e,\" one participant asserted, eloquently describing how the platform supports peer learning. However, the awareness and usage of these collaborative features remained scattered; for instance, some admitted that they \"\u003cem\u003edid not know there was a discussion board until someone said so\u003c/em\u003e,\" which points to the lack of organised facilitation from lecturers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings lend strong support to the 'social influence' construct of the UTAUT model, according to which an individual's behaviour is influenced by his perception of whether important others think he should use a system (Venkatesh \u0026amp; Bala, 2008). Such norms, established by lecturers and peer groups, would be powerful forces in the close-knit social environment of a rural university, encouraging the adoption of technology. Students rely on each other for informal technical support, and they appreciate the LMS features designed to build a community (Johnson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This theme uncovers a significant but frequently overlooked opportunity to increase engagement with the LMS. The institution could harness this social power by introducing formal peer mentoring programs and requiring lecturers to craft structured and compulsory group activities that integrate the use of LMS collaborative tools. Such a purposeful pedagogical framework would create the environment for all students to become proficient in the use of these valuable tools; in doing so, it would transition the LMS from a tool predominantly for solitary study into a collaborative learning community platform that will advance both the academic and social life of the university.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheme 5: Dancing Through Cultural Contexts and Attitudinal Dispositions\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLastly, students' interaction with the LMS had a strong presence of cultural and attitudinal factors that are largely disregarded in techno-centric implementation models. For some, the transition to online applications has been considered a diversion from the highly regarded way of interacting face-to-face. A student stated, \"\u003cem\u003eI prefer face-to-face. Online feels cold,\"\u003c/em\u003e which many would agree with as a sentiment that digital platforms often feel impersonal and alienating, devoid of that relational warmth that physical classrooms inherently provide. This, in turn, implies the necessity of situating the functionality of educational technology within the proper cultural balance that respects local pedagogical norms (Cheng et al., 2020). Language had emerged as a blocking factor for several students. According to a participant's account, \"\u003cem\u003eSometimes the instructions are in English, and I do not understand.\"\u003c/em\u003e As in the South African multilingual context, the monolingual nature of many digital platforms can pose significant obstacles to comprehension and participation, particularly for students who are not native English speakers. This realisation highlights the need for remedial approaches for designing educational technology from cultural and linguistic perspectives, a matter that is vital to digital equity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther compounded by such attitudes and cultural predispositions were feelings of exclusion, particularly by students hailing from communities with minimal exposure to technology. \"\u003cem\u003eIn my village, we do not use computers. I was scared at first\u003c/em\u003e,\" indeed betrays a deep-rooted lack of confidence grounded in much larger socio-economic and geographic disparities. The above statement brings to light the glaring significance of\" perceived relevance\" and \"cultural alignment\" as critical acceptance determinants of a technology by the marginalised sections of society, iPhone (Almaiah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These students' propositions for a culturally inclusive induction and peer mentoring from their own backgrounds address this pressing need. This theme thus reveals the fact that a combination of mainstream technical and universal approaches to LMS implementation will not suffice. It, hence, offers strong backing toward the argument that educational technologies would be most effective if embedded in a framework that encloses the local culture, local language, and students' lived realities (Selwyn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). By bringing these student voices to the fore, the study challenges the notion of a one-size-fits-all solution. It highlights the critical need for institutional strategies that are not only technologically robust but also culturally sensitive and contextually aware. This approach is fundamental to creating a digital learning environment that is not only effective but also truly inclusive and equitable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to grasp the perceptions, challenges, and prospects of Learning Management System (LMS) adoption by undergraduate students in a rural South African university. With the focus on the lived experiences of that often-marginalised demographic, the findings offer a nuanced and critical standpoint, revealing the complex web of factors that mediate the efficacy of educational technology. The emergent themes resonate with and affirm the main propositions of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) while also enriching the model by embedding it into the everyday socio-economic and infrastructural realities of the rural context. This discussion thus synthesises the findings with interpretive attempts informed by the literature and the study's theoretical framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne central and somewhat acute finding is that pre-existing digital literacy strongly informs students' initial engagement with LMS. The candid admission \"I did not even know how to log in\" acts as a synecdoche that encapsulates some of the anxieties and very practical impediments experienced by a large section of the student body. The finding, thus, aligns with the construct of effort expectancy from the UTAUT model; effort expectancy relates to how easy one perceives the use of a system to be, and it has primarily been seen as a vital factor in accepting a given technology early on (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, \u0026amp; Davis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). In the broader sense, for students who hail from under-resourced rural areas, the effort is even more profound, encompassing all emotional aspects while challenging the deeply entrenched assumption that all young folks are innately digitally fluent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother striking finding pertains to what the students told us about the nature of the trials and tribulations of technology adoption: informal learning and peer-support networks helped to bridge the gap, but not institutional training. While this circumstance portrays an admirable spirit of resilience and collaborative agency on the students' part, it represents a glaring failure on the institution's part. All that these students are oppressed by their different learning needs remains unaddressed. The institution has decided to disregard this issue, giving further impetus to advantaging those who have social capital in the computer jargon (Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Stolz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Albeit worthy of praise, this approach has questioned the institution's role in fostering Digital Literacy amongst its student body. Therefore, there is an impassioned cry from literature for explicit training and support mechanisms that culminate in users' ability to interact with such educational technologies during the disruption of their current educational modes to online (Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Stolz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn terms of 'facilitating conditions,' the study clearly illustrates, albeit starkly, that the absence thereof severely limits an LMS. Accounts from the students on unstable internet connections, exorbitant data costs, and inequities in access to computing devices create an obvious and strong portrayal of the concept of digital divide. These infrastructural inequities, as espoused by Bervell and Umar (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), are flagged as the key inhibitors of LMS acceptance in Sub-Saharan Africa and as a separate set of factors with each demanding the full attention of anyone considering addressing the problem of LMS implementation; they are not mere nuisances but rather fundamental barriers that hinder equal participation. However, according to the student informants at this university, the on-campus facilities, being too few and too stretched, are oblivious to what looked like distant disparities on the outside.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis infrastructural accommodation has considerable implications for digital equity. As posited by Selwyn (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), when educational technologies are implemented within contexts of inequality, they run the risk of exacerbating, rather than ameliorating, existing socio-economic disparities. Considering the findings of this study, it is evident that students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds are further impeded. Therefore, the argument from the earlier literature that LMS is supposed to empower access to education (Jones \u0026amp; Pimdee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) can only stand if there is a supporting infrastructure that assists in deploying the system. The absence of an accessible infrastructure morphs the entire LMS system into a vehicle of exclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents' perspectives on the value of LMS were inextricably linked to how their lecturers incorporated it into their teaching. This finding clearly corresponds to the UTAUT construct of 'performance expectancy,' which concerns a user's belief that a system will enhance their abilities to perform activities (Venkatesh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Distinct narratives indicated that when lecturers used the LMS as an interactive tool for quizzes, feedback, and discussions, students perceived it as a very positive contributor to their learning experience, a finding supported by Almaiah et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). As Johnson et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) suggest, this finding highlights the importance of active engagement strategies in learning through technology. The LMS, conversely, was a source for frustration and disengagement when used as a digital dumping ground for irrelevant PDF documents. Such inconsistent application of the LMS across faculties and modules has indicated no cohesive institutional strategy behind its use in teaching and learning. It aligns with the concerns raised by Garrison and Kanuka (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) that, without a related pedagogical change, digital platforms may facilitate a superficial form of learning. These students not only want standardisation but also want lecturer training that focuses more on pedagogical innovation as opposed to technical know-how (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe strength of 'social influence,' yet another core UTAUT construct, was demonstrated in the tightly knit community of the rural university. Participants reported that, in many instances, they were initially motivated to engage with the LMS through the encouragement of their peers and lecturers. This finding supports the assertion that, in environments where there is a shared sense of community, social norms become a predominant factor in determining behavioural intention (Venkatesh \u0026amp; Bala, 2008). Students also used collaborative tools, such as discussion forums, to diminish feelings of isolation, highlighting the social dimension of their learning experience and the potential of an LMS to develop a sense of community.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the full value of these socialisation and collaboration features could rarely be realised due to poor communication about them and their inconsistent facilitation by some lecturers. This represents a missed opportunity. In an environment where students may already feel geographically and socially isolated, the building capacities of an LMS for communities are not simply a secondary perk but, indeed, a core component of a supportive and inclusive educational environment. An intentional, structured integration of collaborative learning within curricula would go a long way to improving students' social and academic experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study also sheds light on the importance of cultural context, which is often omitted in universalist models of technology adoption. Students' preference for face-to-face interaction and perceptions of online learning as \"cold\" speak to established pedagogical norms and the high value placed on relational learning. Cheng et al. (2020) postulate that educational technology should be adapted to align with the cultural context of its users; otherwise, it invites resistance. Furthermore, the linguistic barriers faced by some students highlight a serious dimension of digital equity: a \"one-size-fits-all\" monolingual approach will not work in a country as diverse as South Africa.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe synthesis of these findings clearly demonstrates that the adoption and effective application of an LMS in a rural university is not a simple technological problem but a complex sociotechnical phenomenon. The four primary constructs of UTAUT provide a conceptual vehicle for exploring that complexity; however, the qualitative data reveal the intimate nexus between these factors. Poor providing conditions (infrastructure) increase the level of effort expectancy (difficulty of use), while having a lack of institutional strategy (facilitating condition) leads to piecemeal pedagogic integration, which further lowers performance expectancy. Social influence is a vital mediating factor, but it cannot make up for these structural and pedagogic deficiencies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn outcome of such a marginalised interpretation, intended to increase the voice of undergraduate students, saw their assertion refuting the techno-optimistic narratives that considered the LMS as a panacea for the challenges associated with rural higher education. Alternative ideas, both critical and nuanced, have formed the basis of this study's articulation, which has the utmost relevance for theory, policy, and practice. It calls for an institution-wide holistic strategy with digital equity as a foremost concern, starting from the provision of foundational digital literacy for all students, concurrent remedies for infrastructural disparities, and sustained professional development for lecturers in digital pedagogy. It is only through a comprehensive, multi-pronged, and equity-centred approach that the LMS can be truly positioned as an agent of change for all its students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eImplications of the Study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFindings from this qualitative study, which focused on the voices and lived experiences of undergraduate students, have significant implications for policies, teaching practices, and future research related to the use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) in rural higher education. Beyond mere technical considerations of the LMS, this study provides a nuanced, context-specific understanding of the impediments and opportunities for digital learning, serving as a counterbalance to techno-optimistic narratives that can overlook the profound challenges of digital equity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eImplications for Institutional Policy and Strategy\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eForemost among the implications of the study is the compelling need for rural higher education leadership to reconceptualise digital equity not as a peripheral concern, but as a core institutional strategy. This implies that the implementation of an LMS cannot be carried out in a fragmented manner, such as purchasing software. Instead, a digital learning policy ought to be developed, which explicitly acknowledges that a digital divide exists prior to this digital learning strategy and that resources will be mobilised towards abating it (Bervell \u0026amp; Umar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This requires a shift from thinking of rural learners as instances of deficit to actively building a digital environment that is inclusive and supportive of their needs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis weighty commitment must thus ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to 'facilitating conditions,' which are essential for the acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, \u0026amp; Davis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). From accounts of infrastructural disintegration, there is one policy imperative: high on the institutional agenda must be the establishment of a sound and dependable technological infrastructure, which would benefit several purposes. Improving Wi-Fi coverage in these campuses is just one of many such concerns. Inventive strategies such as device loan schemes and decentralised access points merit exploration, as these would alleviate the challenges faced by students who are remote either geographically or economically. Literature has emphasised that without such support, the infrastructure upon which the enhancement of LMS facilities depends is severely limited (Jones \u0026amp; Pimdee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Smith \u0026amp; Rahman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eImplications for Practice\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond high-level policy, the findings highlight a series of crucial implications for everyday institutional practice. The widespread anxiety and lack of confidence expressed by students, including the admission, \"I did not even know how to log in,\" shatters the myth that all students are inherently digitally fluent. This directly impacts how student support services should operate: institutions must provide mandatory, structured digital literacy programs, especially to first-year students and those from backgrounds with scant technological exposure. These programs should be basic yet continuous, aimed at providing students with the confidence and know-how to operate the digital learning environment adequately \u0026mdash;a need confirmed by the difficulties associated with the shift to online learning (Stolz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, the inconsistent use of LMS in teaching by some lecturers highlights the necessity for ongoing professional development. These results imply that academia training should shift from merely teaching practical use towards embracing pedagogical innovations. Academic staff need to be assisted in making learning engaging, interactive, and cooperative using LMS's full capabilities to maximise their students' 'performance expectancy' (Almaiah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Johnson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Everyone needs to pitch in promoting the use of LMS as a pedagogical tool, not just as a digital library for class materials, to energise its full potential in enhancing student learning. Garrison \u0026amp; Kanuka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research further made evident how strong and pervasive, although often informal, the 'social influence' factor is in affecting students in their adoption of LMS. The reliance on peers for technical assistance, coupled with a positive desire for the best collaborative tools, presents institutional practice with significant opportunities to explore. It would be worthwhile for an institution to formalise and utilise these informal support networks, all the better by creating structured peer mentoring programmes on one level. On the other hand, lecturers could be encouraged to identify and actively develop collaborative projects integrated with the LMS to enhance these project features. Such deliberate alignment would build students' digital competencies and address the isolation that is often found to characterise the rural university experience, thereby reinforcing the establishment's academic strength and social fabric.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, the findings on cultural and linguistic barriers demand a much more culturally responsive approach to digital learning design and implementation. The perception of online learning as \"cold\" and the challenges posed by a monolingual interface underscore that one approach alone will not suffice. Institutions may want to investigate how they provide support in several languages through the LMS and offer training to the academic staff, to help them make digital content culturally inclusive. This resounds with the argument that educational technologies must have room to reflect the cultural backgrounds of their users to foster a feeling of belonging, rather than further alienating already marginalised students (Cheng et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eImplications for Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study offers a rich snapshot of rural South African students' experiences, which opens the door to new horizons of research possibilities. In the first place, it suggests that even if UTAUT is a useful analytical tool, its constructs are deeply imbued and shaped by the socio-economic and infrastructural realities of the rural context. Future research may seek to extend or adapt existing acceptance models of technology to better account for the repercussions of the digital divide in resource-constrained settings, to develop a more context-sensitive theoretical model. In the second instance, whereas this study offers a thick description of how students perceive their experiences at a single point in time, it calls for longitudinal studies tracking the changes and patterns in the evolution of students' digital literacy, confidence, and engagement with LMS throughout their academic careers. These studies could offer critical input into addressing the impacts of institutional interventions and shaping the developmental trajectory in terms of graduate skills. Lastly, there exists an urgent call for further comparative qualitative studies on different rural institutions in South Africa and beyond. Those studies could help identify broader patterns and best practices, as well as contextual factors unique to rural settings that influence the implementation of educational technology. By continuing to amplify student voices and prioritising digital equity, future research is already playing a vital role in ensuring that the digital transformation of higher education achieves its goals successfully and equitably.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study undertook a critical assessment of LMS implementation in a South African rural university, foregrounding the lived experiences of undergraduate students to illuminate the complex interplay of infrastructural, pedagogical, and socio-cultural challenges shaping digital learning. The findings show that for many students, digital engagement begins not with empowerment but with uncertainty and exclusion, mainly due to low digital literacy, inadequate infrastructural support, uneven pedagogical integration, and peer-reliant assessment. Themes concerning effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, performance expectancy, and social influence are, in the study, shown to be deeply influenced by context-specific inequities through the lens of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Presented is a rich bottom-up counter-narrative to techno-optimistic assumptions, thereby challenging universalist discourses of educational technology and underscoring the limits of techno-solutionism in resource-constrained settings. Worth mentioning is that while the researchers duly recognise the study's limitations as a qualitative case study, it nevertheless stands as a worthy addition to the literature on digital equity and educational technology by extending the UTAUT framework and considering the human element in digital adoption. On a final note, the research suggests that higher education stakeholders should pause their current focus and adopt context-sensitive, inclusive strategies that prioritise enabling each student to engage at the most basic level, starting with something as simple as learning how to log in.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial Number\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData will be made available upon request from the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor information\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor and Affiliation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDepartment of Curriculum/Education Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Edgewood Campus, Durban, South Africa\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOluwatoyin Ayodele Ajani\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOAA contributed to the study conception, design, material preparation, data collection, analysis, draft of the manuscript, and read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorresponding author\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorrespondence to\u0026nbsp;Oluwatoyin Ayodele Ajani.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics declarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and informed consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ethical aspects of this research were reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Zululand with the Ethical Clearance No UZ-REC 0691-008 Dept 2024/11. Prior to participation, all individuals were fully informed of the study\u0026apos;s nature and their rights, and written informed consent was obtained. The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines governing research involving human participants, as outlined by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Zululand, and in adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlmaiah MA, Al-Khasawneh A, Althunibat A. Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educ Inform Technol. 2020;25:5261\u0026ndash;80. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10219-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10639-020-10219-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlvi M. (2016). A manual for selecting sampling techniques in research. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 70218. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/70218/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/70218/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBao W. COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Hum Behav Emerg Technol. 2020;2(2):113\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/hbe2.191\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBervell B, Umar IN. A decade of LMS acceptance and adoption research in Sub-Saharan African higher education: A systematic review from 2004 to 2018. Educ Inform Technol. 2019;24(6):3593\u0026ndash;627. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09945-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10639-019-09945-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBozkurt A, Sharma RC. Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian J Distance Educ. 2020;15(1):i\u0026ndash;vi. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/462\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/462\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Sage; 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Sage; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarrison DR, Kanuka H. Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High Educ. 2004;7(2):95\u0026ndash;105. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhavifekr S, Rosdy WAW. Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. Int J Res Educ Sci (IJRES). 2015;1(2):175\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ijres.net/index.php/ijres/article/view/45\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.ijres.net/index.php/ijres/article/view/45\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnson L, Becker A, Estrada S, V., Freeman A. NMC Horizon Report: 2018 Higher Education Edition. EDUCAUSE; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones C, Pimdee P. Digital tools for seamless learning. Contemp Educational Technol. 2017;8(1):18\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6199\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30935/cedtech/6199\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNguyen T. Digital transformation in higher education: A framework for assessment and improvement. J Res Technol Educ. 2019;51(4):409\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1646742\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15391523.2019.1646742\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSelwyn N. Digital downsides: Exploring university students' negative engagements with digital technology. Teach High Educ. 2016;21(8):1006\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1213229\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13562517.2016.1213229\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith J, Rahman A. Implementation of cloud-based learning management systems in developing countries: Challenges and prospects. Education Tech Research Dev. 2021;69:85\u0026ndash;104. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09885-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11423-020-09885-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStolz SA, Barber M, Kizilcec RF. Challenges in transitioning to online learning environments in the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Learn. 2020;24(4):6\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2335\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.24059/olj.v24i4.2335\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVenkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425\u0026ndash;78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/30036540\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/30036540\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang Y, Hao L, Platt LS, Raile ANW. Examining the role of technology in learning: An evaluation of e-learning systems. Comput Educ. 2021;128:63\u0026ndash;74. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZheng L, Zhao Z, McMahon G. Technology-facilitated learning in higher education: Dimensions of student-staff engagement. Comput Educ. 2020;144:103714. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103714\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103714\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"rural university, digital divide, Learning Management Systems (LMS), digital equity, student perceptions","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7225403/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7225403/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWhile Learning Management Systems (LMS) are increasingly central to higher education globally, their implementation in resource-constrained rural contexts presents profound challenges to digital equity. This study addresses the critical gap in understanding the lived experiences of undergraduate students in a rural South African university, a demographic often marginalised in the discourse on educational technology. Adopting a qualitative inquiry design, this research utilises semi-structured interviews to explore students' perceptions, challenges, and the socio-cultural factors shaping their engagement with the institutional LMS. Framed by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), the study analyses how constructs such as effort expectancy and facilitating conditions are profoundly influenced by students' prior digital exposure and infrastructural realities. Findings reveal significant barriers, encapsulated by one student's admission: \"I did not even know how to log in.\" Key themes include initial anxieties rooted in low digital literacy, the critical role of peer-led informal support networks, and frustrations arising from infrastructural deficits and inconsistent pedagogical integration by faculty. By amplifying student voices, this research challenges techno-optimistic narratives. It provides crucial insights for developing culturally responsive, equitable, and context-aware digital learning strategies in under-resourced higher education settings.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Student Experiences of Digital Literacy and Learning Management System Adoption in Rural Higher Education","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-15 09:33:30","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7225403/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e7fd9d73-1db6-419e-bc9f-f5bb64ae639c","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 15th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-21T11:51:09+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-15 09:33:30","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7225403","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7225403","identity":"rs-7225403","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}