Despite wide-ranging policies and practices intended to address historical inequalities in South African higher education, and calls for decolonisation to include more local relevance, little attention has been paid to the experiences of rural students, especially their digital participation once at university. Previous research has highlighted limitations in technological access in rural areas and the importance of mobile phones for transitions. Whilst universities offer wideranging digital support, there remains a tendency towards universalist mechanisms. Drawing on a longitudinal study across three universities, and employing Holland's theory of figured worlds, we highlight rural students' experiences of digital transitions across different cultural worlds, prior to university and once they arrive, including the bewildering technocratic systems and practices and resulting conflicts and positionings encountered. We show how students improvise to decode the digital university and figure out new practices. Decolonisation of universities involves rethinking the 'technocratic consciousness' (both colonialist and neoliberal) and its apparatus including digital systems and structures. For rural students to become successful digital practitioners in higher education, universities should acknowledge prior digital experience and forms of knowledge and focus on expanding individual and collective agency in supporting transitions, as mechanisms for shaping a decolonised digital education.

While blended learning is well entrenched in many developed countries as a solution towards enabling access to educational resources and managing student diversity, this may not be the same for rural based universities in developing countries. Yet, blended learning is ideal for the current terrain of the COVID-19 pandemic which requires learning modalities that promote social distancing to reduce the spread of the disease while ensuring that students have access to quality teaching and learning materials and to frequently stay engaged. For many rural based universities, successful blended learning implementation implies an exploration of possible ways to strengthen existing practices. This paper, using the document analysis method, sought to explore the prospects and pitfalls of implementing blended learning in rural- based universities in Southern Africa. The blended learning implementation framework by Graham, Woodfield and Harrison (2013) served as a guiding framework as it was specifically designed to determine success in blended learning adoption and implementation in education. This framework utilises the constructs of strategy, structure and support to differentiate the stages of adopting blended learning. These three stages are in a continuum and comprise awareness and exploration as stage 1, adoption or early implementation as stage 2 and mature implementation and growth as stage 3, with stages differing depending on the extent of formalisation of the institutional strategy, structure and support. Findings indicated prospects of blended learning entail providing opportunities for flexible learning, enabling access to a wide range of educational resources and limiting alienation associated with purely online education delivery. For many institutions, however, implementation of blended learning is still a mirage with the majority still at the first stage of Graham et al.’s (2013) blended learning adoption and implementation framework owing to technical resource constraints related to unstable or non-existent network coverage characteristic in rural locations, curricular deficit stemming from the blended learning model not aligning to context, thus lowering morale for wider implementation. This is exacerbated by weak goodwill and limited policy guidelines on a specific blended learning model. The study concludes that creating conducive conditions for blended learning in rural based universities necessitates a context friendly implementation model where institutional evaluation data inform strategies, support and pedagogical approaches and related resources that can be used locally. The study recommends governmental support for resourcing rural universities to acquire affordable and usable resources to offset challenges hindering blended learning. Rural institutions should also strive to strengthen support to students and staff to build confidence in the potential of blended learning.

No abstract

This paper reports on a study that focuses on students from rural areas of South Africa and their experiences of higher education. These students have attracted little attention in widening participation research in South Africa, despite being one of the most marginalised groups (Mgqwashu 2016a). The paper, drawing on the experiences of student co-researchers and using the concepts of decoloniality and curricular justice as a theoretical framework, argues for greater acknowledgement of epistemic reciprocity in curriculum development as a way to ensure more socially just curricula. Findings illustrate the importance that students attribute to being able to relate to curricula that reflect their experiences, curricula that they do not experience in higher education.Students report feelings of marginalisation, lack of recognition of the importance of knowledge and skills developed in their communities and their relevance to higher education together with the challenges they face accessing and engaging with the curriculum.

This study forms part of a wider NRF project that sought to examine the enabling and constraining conditions in the uptake of professional development opportunities by academics as teachers at eight South African universities. This case study isolated two rurally-based, historically disadvantaged South African institutions (HDIs). Qualitative data from institutional self-evaluation reports were augmented with semi-structured interviews conducted with five members of the senior management and ten academics at each of the institutions. Thematic analysis of the data revealed constraints around promotion policy and the value accorded to research development over teaching development, the inability of rural institutions to attract and retain staff, as well as the huge workloads that consumed time that could have been used for professional development. The study recommends reconsideration of theoretical frameworks that inform professional development in rural universities and a re-look at practicalities in the modes of delivery when planning for professional development interventions in rural settings.