Towards Inclusive Learning Management Systems Integration in South African Universities of Technology

Abstract

There is increasing pressure on South African Universities of Technology (UoTs) to incorporate cutting-edge Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to enhance teaching and learning. Adopting Learning Management Systems (LMSs), which offer adaptable, easily accessible, and data-driven education, is essential to this change. Nevertheless, many UoT lecturers still struggle to successfully adopt and use LMS platforms, even with investments in digital infrastructure and policy development. This study presents the equity-sensitive Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework as a conceptual addition to inclusive digital pedagogy and investigates lecturers’ experiences with LMS integration at South African UoTs. This study aimed to explore how lecturers at South African UoT experience the adoption and integration of LMSs and to examine how institutional support, digital literacy, and infrastructural factors shape inclusive digital pedagogy. The results of an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) of six interviews with academic staff were structured into three thematic subsections (i.e., (1) lecturers’ experiences of LMS adoption, (2) institutional, infrastructural and personal factors and (3) institutional support, training and inclusivity) that directly align with the three study’s research questions. Rethinking TPACK from an equity-sensitive perspective advances theory by establishing access and equity as central mediating conditions of technology integration, especially in Global South higher education contexts with limited resources. In practical terms, the findings show that to promote inclusive and sustainable LMS adoption, specific capacity building, policy alignment, and institutional investment are required. The paper is relevant to policymakers, academic developers, and institutional leaders because of these implications, which align with the National Digital and Future Skills Strategy, the National Research Foundation (NRF) priorities, and the Department of Higher Education and Training’s (DHET) White Paper on Post-School Education.

1. Introduction

Higher education’s pedagogical practices have changed as a result of the integration of digital technologies, making learning experiences more adaptable, customised, and data-driven (Alam & Mohanty, 2023; Owan et al., 2023). Learning Management Systems (LMSs) are pivotal in institutional digital strategies as they enable both synchronous and asynchronous learning, assessment, and communication (Bradley, 2021; Wang et al., 2024). Although traditional universities around the world have extensively researched their adoption, little is known about the context of Universities of Technology (UoTs), which have a vocational and applied focus. According to Friedrich-Nel and Lues (2024), UoTs in South Africa are type of institutions required to provide career-orientated education that is in line with industry demands and technologically advanced labour markets. Their contribution to bridging skills gaps emphasises how crucial it is to implement LMSs successfully. Nevertheless, lecturers at UoTs still report unequal institutional support, infrastructural deficiencies, and gaps in digital literacy despite national investments in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure (Molokomme, 2024; Memon & Memon, 2025). The way that LMSs are actually used and viewed in practice is called into question by these systemic barriers.

Much LMS research has focused on North America and Europe, where robust institutional support and stable infrastructure have normalised LMS integration, including frequent platform migrations. Universities in the Global North, which thrive on stable infrastructure and support, are the primary source of research on the deployment of LMS (Bradley, 2021). On the other hand, the conditions in the Global South provide distinct difficulties that are very different from those in the North. These include limited funding, inadequate infrastructure, persistent equity disparities, socio-economic inequalities and growing pressure from policymakers to align programmes with labour market demands (Adarkwah, 2021). Studies of LMS in South Africa and other developing regions offer unique insights into the interplay of equity, resource constraints, and institutional readiness with digital pedagogy, distinguishing them from Global North research. This creates a unique setting in which the adoption of LMS is a process that is influenced by systematic inequalities and is not just a technical choice. This study is unique because it examines LMS adoption within a South African UoT, emphasising how student access, lecturer capacity, and institutional preparedness mediate technology integration differently than their counterparts in the Global North. This paper aims to address the following Research Questions (RQ) in order to close this gap:

• RQ1—What are the lived experiences and perceptions of lecturers regarding the adoption and use of LMSs in teaching and learning?
• RQ2—How do systemic, institutional, and personal factors influence lecturers’ use of LMSs?
• RQ3—What is the role of institutional support structures in facilitating/hindering effective LMS integration?

Moreover, this study extends the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006) into an “equity-sensitive TPACK” lens, emphasising inclusion and social justice as central to technology adoption. These contributions enhance comprehension of digital pedagogy in South Africa and provide applicable insights for polytechnics and vocational universities in other resource-limited environments globally. By applying the TPACK framework to UoTs, a relatively understudied institutional type, the study adds to the body of knowledge on digital teaching practices in resource-constrained higher education. Furthermore, it provides a basis for the creation of more inclusive and successful digital learning strategies. In doing so, the study further contributes to international debates on digital pedagogy by advancing an equity-sensitive TPACK lens, which repositions equity and inclusion as central rather than peripheral dimensions of technology adoption. This study will be structured as follows: Section 2 will provide a conducted literature review. Section 3 will present the methodology adopted for this study, while Section 4 will provide the results and analysis of the study. Section 5 will cover the discussions. Section 6 provides implications for policy and practice, while in Section 7 conclusions will be drawn, and limitations, future direction and research gaps will be considered.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Global and South African Perspectives on LMS in Higher Education

LMSs have been central to digital transformation in higher education since the late 20th century. In Europe and North America, platforms such as Blackboard, Canvas, and Desire2Learn became mainstream from the 1990s onwards, with subsequent studies documenting widespread adoption, platform migration, and pedagogical innovation (Bradley, 2021; Pechenkina & Branigan, 2023; Wang et al., 2024). These contexts illustrate how LMSs can support blended, fully online, and adaptive learning models in environments where infrastructure is relatively stable. By contrast, Global South contexts face persistent challenges in LMS adoption, where infrastructure, equity, and institutional readiness significantly moderate outcomes (Adarkwah, 2021; Muuro et al., 2014). This global-to-local trajectory provides an important backdrop for the South African case.

Similar challenges have been reported across the Global South, particularly in resource-constrained vocational and technical institutions. In Latin America, for instance, universities in Brazil and Mexico report uneven LMS adoption between urban and rural campuses, with connectivity and affordability shaping student access (Garlinska et al., 2023). Asian polytechnics, including those in India and the Philippines, face parallel challenges as mobile devices rather than laptops dominate LMS use, raising issues of platform compatibility and cost (Umer et al., 2023). In an African context, Olakulehin and Singh (2013) discovered that the adoption of LMS in Nigerian universities was impeded by a lack of professional development opportunities and inadequate infrastructure. Similarly, Adarkwah (2021) noted that during the COVID-19 pandemic, Ghanaian universities had difficulties being digitally prepared, especially because of students’ dependence on mobile phones and expensive data plans. While highlighting enduring issues with digital literacy and institutional support, Muuro et al. (2014) noted that lecturers and students in Kenya appreciated the pedagogical affordances of LMS platforms. These patterns resonate strongly with the South African UoT experience, where mobile access and infrastructural gaps also frame the conditions of adoption. Positioning the South African case within these wider patterns underscores its relevance to international debates while also highlighting unique policy-driven pressures, such as alignment with DHET’s White Paper on Post-School Education.

Recent scholarship underscores that equitable technology integration cannot be achieved in isolation from broader systemic and policy frameworks. These developments align with national and international priorities for digital inclusion. At the national level, DHET’s National Plan for Post-School Education and Training (NPPSET) and Revised Strategic Plan 2025–2030 emphasise the need to build digital competencies and integrate digital technologies across the post-school system (DHET, 2023; DHET, 2025). At a continental and international level, the African Union’s Digital Education Strategy (2023–2028) and UNESCO’s (2024) Framework for a Human-Centred Digital Transformation of Education underscore the centrality of infrastructure, teacher capacity, and equitable access in scaling digital learning in resource-constrained contexts (African Union, 2023). Together, these initiatives provide a policy foundation that reinforces the importance of equity-sensitive approaches to digital transformation in higher education. Within this policy landscape, the current study situates the equity-sensitive TPACK framework as a conceptual response to these priorities, offering a contextually grounded model for inclusive digital transformation in South African UoT.

2.2. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework

Mishra and Koehler (2006) developed the TPACK framework, which offers a strong theoretical framework for comprehending how to successfully incorporate technology into instruction. By including the technological component, which has grown in importance in modern educational settings, TPACK expands upon Shulman’s (1986) idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). A popular theoretical method for comprehending how teachers incorporate technology into their teaching methods is the TPACK framework. Technological Knowledge (TK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Content Knowledge (CK) as illustrated in Figure 1 are the three main components of TPACK. These components emphasise how these elements work together to promote successful teaching with digital tools.

Although TPACK has been extensively used in technology integration research, little is known about how it can be used in institutions with limited resources, such as South African UoTs. According to studies conducted in South Africa, the ability of lecturers to effectively use technology in the classroom is influenced by institutional factors like infrastructure, support, and opportunities for professional growth (Al-Nuaimi & Al-Emran, 2021). For instance, despite lecturers’ technological and pedagogical expertise, systemic barriers and insufficient training frequently make it difficult for them to integrate LMS platforms (Kaqinari, 2023). This suggests that TPACK should be considered from the perspective of accessibility and institutional preparedness, particularly in situations where structural disparities influence the adoption of technology. In this study, TPACK provides a lens to examine how lecturers at a UoT draw on their pedagogical, content, and technological knowledge to implement LMS platforms in their teaching practice. This study thus proposes an “equity-sensitive TPACK” lens that recognises social justice as integral to technology adoption in resource-constrained contexts. By highlighting equity and inclusivity as mediating conditions for technological, pedagogical, and content integration, this paper proposes an “equity-sensitive TPACK” lens that expands on the original framework. In environments with limited resources, PK is influenced by institutional training and support, CK is mediated by students’ socioeconomic and accessibility needs, and TK cannot be conceptualised independently of infrastructure dependability. This contribution places equity at the heart of technology integration theory, rather than as an add-on.

2.3. Barriers to LMS Adoption

Systemic barriers and gaps in digital literacy have a particular impact on the adoption of LMS in South African UoTs. According to research, instructors’ reluctance to use LMS platforms is frequently caused by their unfamiliarity with the technology, their inclination towards conventional teaching techniques, and a lack of technical support (Olugbade, 2023). Furthermore, technical difficulties like slow internet access, restricted device use, and problems with system integration are still common (Kormos & Wisdom, 2021). These obstacles are especially noticeable in South African UoTs, where many students rely on mobile phones with spotty data access, and financial limitations frequently preclude prompt upgrades to digital infrastructure (Matumba, 2021). Notwithstanding these difficulties, it has been recognised that LMSs have the ability to improve teaching methods, especially in asynchronous and collaborative learning (Pechenkina & Branigan, 2023). A wide variety of learning needs are supported, and engagement is increased through the use of tools like discussion boards, tests, and multimedia materials (Bradley, 2021). Nonetheless, the effectiveness of these resources depends on instructors’ readiness to adopt digital platforms and on the availability of continuing technical assistance and professional development (Pechenkina & Branigan, 2023).

2.4. LMS and Inclusivity in South African Higher Education

LMS platforms highlight the gaps in accessibility for underprivileged and disabled students, even though they present substantial opportunities for inclusive education. Research indicates that students with visual impairments or learning disabilities face difficulties in engaging with LMS platforms due to a lack of integrated accessibility features, such as screen readers and alternative text formats (Ahmad, 2015; Raffoul & Jaber, 2023). Furthermore, these systems’ ability to support a diverse student body is frequently limited by lecturers’ lack of training in inclusive teaching practices. ICTs are being used by universities all over the world to change conventional teaching and learning approaches (Wang et al., 2024). The desire to increase educational accessibility, boost student engagement, and enable data-driven instructional design has propelled the shift towards digital pedagogy. The LMS is a crucial software platform for organising and distributing online learning materials, facilitating communication between instructors and students, and tracking student progress (Wenzel & Moreno, 2022). LMSs are essential to modern educational infrastructure in developed countries, facilitating various teaching methods from blended learning to fully online courses. The digital divide in South Africa is exacerbated by socioeconomic disparities, making it challenging for students from low-income families to access necessary devices and reliable internet (Memon & Memon, 2025). LMSs can help close these gaps by providing flexible, online learning opportunities. Nevertheless, their effectiveness is lessened in settings with inadequate infrastructure and students who are not tech-savvy (Garlinska et al., 2023).

2.5. Future Directions for LMS Integration

It is evident from the difficulties noted that effective LMS adoption calls for more than just the availability of technology. For integration to be successful, infrastructure investment, professional development, and institutional support are essential (Olugbade, 2023). Additionally, the research highlights the need for adaptable LMS that can meet the various technological requirements of instructors and students, enabling platforms that are interoperable and customisable for institutional settings (Munna et al., 2024). Although LMS platforms have the potential to revolutionise South African UoTs, persistent issues with infrastructure, institutional support, and digital literacy limit their efficacy. UoTs must make investments in all-encompassing strategies that support inclusive digital education, ongoing professional development, and systemic support for instructors and students if they are to realise their full potential. The issues of equity in technology adoption and inclusive digital pedagogy are topics of discussion in the education sciences field that this study supports (Adarkwah, 2021; Raffoul & Jaber, 2023). The paper adds to the journal’s continuing interest in how educational technologies can both mitigate and perpetuate inequality by placing South African UoTs within these international discussions.

2.6. Local Context of the Study

South African UoTs constitute a distinctive segment of the higher education system, characterised by their vocational orientation and applied focus. Unlike traditional academic universities, UoTs prioritise career-centred programmes that are closely aligned with industry and labour-market needs, particularly within technical and management disciplines (Friedrich-Nel & Lues, 2024). These institutions enrol a substantial proportion of students from historically disadvantaged backgrounds. Many of these students continue to face structural inequities related to digital access, data affordability, and preparedness for technology-mediated learning (Memon & Memon, 2025). At the national level, the DHET White Paper on Post-School Education and Training and the National Digital and Future Skills Strategy advocate for the integration of digital technologies to mitigate skills shortages and broaden educational access. Despite these policy commitments and ongoing government investments in ICT infrastructure, UoTs continue to face persistent challenges. These include inconsistent internet connectivity, reliance on mobile data, limited device ownership, and varying levels of digital literacy among both lecturers and students (Molokomme, 2024).

This study was conducted in the Faculty of Management Sciences at a South African UoT, a setting that mirrors many of the opportunities and constraints experienced across the sector. The institution’s efforts toward digitalisation are tempered by resource limitations and the imperative to align teaching practices with evolving industry expectations. Understanding lecturers’ experiences of LMS adoption therefore necessitates an appreciation of this broader institutional and socio-economic context. During the COVID-19 pandemic, lecturers reported using Microsoft Teams alongside the officially supported platforms, Moodle and Blackboard. This does not indicate the concurrent provision of three fully resourced systems but rather reflects a transitional phase in institutional technology use. Moodle and Blackboard remain the predominant LMS platforms, with Microsoft Teams functioning mainly as a complementary communication tool during emergency remote teaching. Moodle’s open-source and cost-effective nature makes it particularly suitable for resource-constrained environments. On the other hand, Blackboard is valued for its integrated administrative features despite higher maintenance costs. These diverse practices reveal the ongoing institutional negotiations between affordability, functionality, and staff familiarity that shape how LMS platforms are adopted and experienced in South African UoTs.

3. Methodology

3.1. Goals and Research Questions

This study aimed to explore how lecturers at South African UoT experience the adoption and integration of LMSs and to examine how institutional support, digital literacy, and infrastructural factors shape inclusive digital pedagogy. The study does not attempt to generalise across all institutions but rather provides in-depth insights into one faculty case, using an IPA. The RQs to be answered by this study were outlined under the introduction (Section 1). By narrowing the scope, the study provides an idiographic account of LMS adoption situated in one context, offering depth over breadth.

3.2. Research Design

The study adopts a qualitative, hermeneutic phenomenological design, guided by IPA. Phenomenology is well suited for investigating subjective lived experiences in context (Smith, 1996), while IPA combines phenomenology, hermeneutics, and idiography to provide detailed, case-orientated insights (Smith & Osborn, 2015). The approach emphasises depth and nuance rather than statistical generalisability, making it appropriate for small-sample studies in higher education (Clarke, 2009).

3.3. Participants and Sampling

A purposive sampling strategy was used to recruit six academic staff members from the Faculty of Management Sciences at a South African UoT (see

Table 1. Participant characteristics (n = 6). Age, role, and LMS experience for lecturers interviewed. Data are self-reported and presented to provide contextual information for qualitative analysis.

Participants	Age	Gender	Level of Qualifications	Current Job Position	Job Experience	LMS Use Experience
P1	40–49 Years	Male	Master’s Degree	Permanent Lecturer	11–15 Years	6–10 Years
P2	30–39 Years	Female	Master’s Degree	Permanent Lecturer	11–15 Years	1–2 Years
P3	40–49 Years	Female	Master’s Degree	Part time Lecturer	Less than 5 Years	3–5 Years
P4	50–50 Years	Female	Master’s Degree	Permanent Lecturer	16 Years and Above	Less than 1 Year
P5	50–59 Years	Male	Master’s Degree	Senior Lecturer	16 Years and Above	1–2 Years
P6	40–49 Years	Female	Master’s Degree	Permanent Lecturer	16 Years and Above	3–5 Years

). In keeping with the idiographic nature of IPA, a small, purposive sample of six participants was selected to allow for detailed, context-specific exploration of lived experiences. IPA prioritises depth over breadth, focusing on meaning-making within specific contexts rather than generalisation (Smith & Osborn, 2015). Data saturation was achieved when no new experiential insights or conceptual variations emerged from the later interviews, confirming the adequacy of the sample for interpretative depth.

Participants varied widely in their LMS experience. Most participants reported using Moodle or Blackboard, while one relied primarily on Microsoft Teams during the COVID-19 period. Teaching methods were a mix of synchronous (live lectures, online discussions) and asynchronous approaches (uploaded content, discussion boards). Most participants described using the LMS for administrative purposes, such as managing assignments and grading, while only a few had adopted interactive features to support collaboration. Participants noted that most students relied heavily on mobile devices for internet access, with laptops and campus facilities mentioned less frequently.

3.4. Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted between July and August 2025. This method allowed participants to express their experiences while enabling probing of emergent themes. Interviews were conducted online via Microsoft Teams and lasted between 45 and 60 min. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and anonymised. The interview script was developed deductively from the literature on LMS adoption, TPACK, and technology integration in higher education (Smith & Osborn, 2015; Pechenkina & Branigan, 2023; Wang et al., 2024). Inductively from the South African policy context, including the National Digital and Future Skills Strategy and the DHET White Paper on Post-School Education. The guide included questions about participants’ prior exposure to LMSs, teaching practices, perceived barriers, and experiences with institutional support. To enhance validity, the interview guide was reviewed by two colleagues with expertise in digital pedagogy and piloted with one lecturer not included in the final sample. Minor revisions were made to improve clarity and flow before formal data collection.

3.5. Data Analysis

Data were analysed following the six stages of IPA outlined by Smith (1996): (1) iterative reading, (2) initial noting, (3) emergent theme identification, (4) theme clustering, (5) cross-case analysis, and (6) pattern recognition. The analysis was supported by NVivo 12 software to facilitate systematic coding and theme development. Transcripts were read multiple times to achieve immersion, after which initial codes were generated manually and refined inductively. Related codes were grouped into broader categories and subsequently developed into superordinate themes that reflected convergences and divergences across participants. Throughout this process, reflective memoing was used to ensure transparency and consistency in interpretation.

3.6. Ethical Considerations

The study complied with the South African Department of Health’s Ethics in Health Research: Principles, Processes and Structures (2nd edition, 2015), which exempts minimal-risk research involving adult participants acting in a professional capacity from formal ethics committee review. Accordingly, no institutional Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval was required. Participants were fully informed of the study’s aims, procedures, and their rights prior to data collection. Written informed consent was obtained, and confidentiality and anonymity were assured through the use of pseudonyms and secure data handling protocols. After obtaining consent for participation, the researcher sent an email that included essential documentation, such as a summary of the study. Regarding the use of AI, ChatGPT and Grammarly QuillBot were used solely to support language editing and structuring of sections but not to generate data or analysis. All interpretative coding and thematic analysis were conducted by the researcher.

3.7. The Present Study’s Contribution

By offering a thorough, qualitative investigation of lecturers’ experiences with LMSs at a South African UoT, this study seeks to close this gap. This study adds to the body of literature by (1) offering a thorough description of the individual and systemic barriers to LMS adoption in a particular, understudied institutional type using a hermeneutic phenomenological approach and the TPACK framework. (2) examining how the particular conditions of a developing nation’s UoT influence the intersection of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge, and (3) providing context-specific insights that can guide the creation of more inclusive and productive digital learning environments, lecturer training, and institutional policy. This study moves beyond a simple quantitative assessment of LMS use to a deeper understanding of the subjective experiences that define the digital teaching and learning landscape in South Africa. Although IPA involves small participant samples, its idiographic depth provides a nuanced account of lecturers’ experiences. This depth is especially critical in resource-constrained and under-studied contexts, where surface-level survey data cannot fully capture the institutional, cultural, and infrastructural complexities of technology adoption.

4. Results and Analysis

4.1. Lecturers’ Experiences of LMS Adoption (RQ1)

In exploring the LMS experience and impact on teaching practice, the first question participants were asked was on “How would you describe your overall experience using the Learning Management System (LMS) at your institution?” In what ways has the LMS impacted your teaching practices?” The findings reveal a dual narrative whereby, on the one hand, the LMS is seen as a transformative tool for pedagogy, communication, and student engagement; on the other hand, infrastructural deficits, uneven training, and digital literacy gaps constrain its effectiveness. The overall tone, on the other hand, reflects optimism, with participants acknowledging the value of LMSs while calling for improved institutional support and equitable access.

The majority of participants viewed the LMS as a valuable tool for teaching and learning. It enabled resource sharing, communication with students, and the facilitation of online teaching. For instance, P3 highlighted the usefulness of the LMS in maintaining teaching continuity during disruptions, such as the water crisis, by allowing access to materials and discussions outside traditional classrooms. Similarly, P5 emphasised the positive impact of the LMS on student engagement, describing learners as receptive and enthusiastic about technology-mediated teaching. Even among those with limited prior exposure, the LMS was recognised as an enabler of pedagogical innovation and adaptability.

Despite these opportunities, participants consistently reported infrastructural and digital barriers. P1 stressed that limited infrastructure and inadequate digital literacy among students hindered the full utilisation of the LMS. P2 also reflected on initial challenges of insufficient training, lack of Wi-Fi access, and limited institutional support during the transition to online learning. These issues point to systemic barriers that affect both staff and students’ ability to integrate technology effectively. P2 indicated the following:

“My LMS experience I can say was both good and bad…it was good for me; it was a growth actually…. but we were not fully trained… and we didn’t have resources like data because I remember I had no Wi-Fi at home when we were told to go full online.”

(P2 Interview Excerpt).

Institutional support was described as uneven. P2 noted the lack of initial training and delayed provision of resources, which placed additional burdens on lecturers adapting to new systems. Conversely, P5 appreciated the institutional support received while also acknowledging that more improvement was necessary to fully empower lecturers. This suggests that while support structures exist, they may be inconsistent across departments and timeframes. Not all participants had direct or sustained experiences with the LMS. P4 admitted to relying primarily on traditional teaching methods and only engaging with Microsoft Teams during COVID-19, later realising it was not the official LMS. P4 explained:

“To be honest with you, I have not been using the LMS… during COVID I was introduced to online learning via MS Teams… but we were made to believe that MS Teams is not an LMS for MUT.”

(P4 Interview Excerpt).

Similarly, P6 acknowledged minimal experience, using Microsoft Teams primarily for presentations and material uploads during the pandemic. These cases highlight that LMS adoption remains uneven across the institution, with some staff still hesitant or lacking opportunities to fully engage. Despite varying levels of experience and challenges, there was an overarching optimism about technology in education. Participants such as P5 expressed enthusiasm about the potential of LMSs to align with the learning preferences of “a new generation of students”. Even P4, with limited usage, maintained a positive outlook, recognising that technology represents the future of higher education despite logistical constraints.

With regard to LMS for student learning outcomes, the question asked was, “Do you believe LMSs have enhanced student learning outcomes in your courses?” The findings illustrate that participants view the LMS as a platform that enhances access, flexibility, and student independence. Nevertheless, infrastructural limitations, inconsistent institutional practices, and student disengagement undermine its effectiveness. Despite these challenges, the responses reveal a growing optimism and gradual adaptation among participants, suggesting that LMS adoption, while uneven, is increasingly recognised as an essential component of modern higher education. Participants generally agreed that the LMS provides flexibility and convenience by allowing students to access learning materials at any time. P1 highlighted that this supports self-directed learning, enabling students to manage their studies independently. Similarly, P2 noted that the LMS fosters learner autonomy, allowing students to engage in learning activities without constant lecturer presence. P3 furthermore recognised the LMS as a vital alternative when physical classes were disrupted, particularly during the shift to online teaching. P1 and P2 said the following statements:

The LMS enables a student to access learning material at any time… which enhances flexibility and supports self-directed learning.

(P1 Interview Excerpt)

It’s improved… they are working alone more than working in front of a lecturer every day.

(P2 Interview Excerpt)

The LMS was viewed as a tool that encourages student independence and responsibility for learning. P2 emphasised that it motivates students to engage with content outside of traditional classroom settings, reducing over-reliance on lecturers. This aligns with broader goals of higher education to cultivate self-directed learning and digital competence among students. While participants acknowledged the benefits of technology integration, institutional practices and cultural factors were seen as barriers. P4 reflected on their decades of traditional teaching, noting generational resistance among some lecturers. They additionally described institutional policies that still heavily favour face-to-face teaching, which limits the scope of online learning. The account additionally revealed frustrations with institutional communication during disruptions, such as water shortages, where staff were abruptly instructed to move online without adequate preparation or consistency.

Despite the opportunities presented by the LMS, participants expressed concerns about student engagement. P6 reported that students sometimes disengaged during online classes, using the platform passively rather than interacting meaningfully with lecturers. Similarly, P1 mentioned that device accessibility, data affordability, and poor participation reduced the overall effectiveness of the LMS. These insights highlight the persistence of a digital divide and the pedagogical challenge of sustaining active engagement in online environments. Even with challenges, participants displayed a willingness to adapt. P4, who initially relied on traditional teaching methods, acknowledged the inevitability of technology and even expressed appreciation for online platforms during COVID-19. This openness suggests a gradual cultural shift among lecturers, even if adoption remains uneven across the institution.

For LMS tools and strategies for the personalised learning theme, the participants were asked a question: “What tools or strategies do you use within the LMS to personalise learning for your students?” The findings show that participants’ use of LMS features varies widely, ranging from advanced application of discussion forums and collaborative tasks to minimal reliance on content posting and announcements. While assessment and feedback functions are valued, some participants still prefer external platforms such as Microsoft Teams and email. Importantly, there is evidence of gradual progression in LMS adoption, with beginners acknowledging their learning curve and more experienced users demonstrating how the platform can support interactive, student-centred teaching.

Some participants described using a range of LMS features to cater to different learning needs. P1 reported employing discussion forums, quizzes, and assignment uploads to engage students through multiple modes of interaction. They also encouraged peer collaboration and feedback, reflecting a pedagogical orientation towards active and participatory learning. Assessment emerged as a central use of LMS platforms. P2 explained that they frequently assign tasks with deadlines and monitor student progress through the system. This indicates that the LMS is being used not only for content delivery but also as a tool for formative assessment and feedback, helping to track student engagement and accountability. Not all participants reported extensive use of the official LMS. P3 noted a preference for Microsoft Teams and email, which have become primary platforms for communication and teaching activities. This reliance on alternative technologies suggests either limited familiarity with the LMS or a perception that other platforms are more accessible or effective. For some participants, LMS adoption remains basic. P5, who described themselves as a beginner, reported mainly using the LMS for uploading course content and sending announcements. While their use is currently limited, there was recognition of the system’s potential to support two-way communication and further enhance teaching practices as familiarity increases.

The participants were additionally asked, “How effective is the LMS in facilitating communication between you and your students?” The findings suggest that while the LMS can be efficient for communication and interaction, its effectiveness is undermined by low student participation, infrastructural barriers, and reliance on external communication platforms. Participants themselves also exhibit varying levels of adoption, with some embracing collaborative tools while others limit their use to basic announcements. The overarching insight is that the LMS is perceived as more effective for lecturers than for students, reflecting a gap between institutional provision and learner engagement.

Most participants expressed concerns that LMS platforms are not fully effective in fostering student participation. P1 observed that many students prefer simpler communication tools such as WhatsApp or email, which require less digital competence, leading to low engagement in discussion forums and announcements. Similarly, P2 explained that while lecturers can efficiently upload materials and manage deadlines, students often fail to engage due to infrastructural barriers (lack of Wi-Fi, data, or devices) or a lack of digital readiness. Technical and resource constraints were repeatedly highlighted as undermining LMS effectiveness. P2 noted that student complaints about limited connectivity, absence of laptops, and data shortages were common, making online learning less reliable compared to in-class instruction. These barriers indicate that while the LMS is designed to promote inclusivity and flexibility, systemic inequities in access continue to limit its potential.

Perceptions of effectiveness varied between participants. P3 regarded the LMS as efficient for interaction during online classes, suggesting that with adequate use, it could facilitate meaningful communication. In contrast, P5 admitted minimal use of collaborative tools such as discussion forums, relying mainly on announcements and direct communication. This highlights the uneven adoption of LMS functionalities, where some staff view it as efficient while others remain at an introductory stage of use. A recurring theme is the preference among students for alternative, more familiar platforms like WhatsApp. As P1 explained, these tools demand less digital competence, making them more attractive than formal LMS features. This points to a mismatch between institutional tools and student practices, raising questions about how to align LMS adoption with existing digital habits.

4.2. Institutional, Infrastructural, and Personal Factors (RQ2)

For the question of “What kind of training or support have you received for using the LMS?”, the findings indicate that while training and institutional support are available, their quality and accessibility vary significantly across staff and students. Initial training was often superficial, with participants calling for continuous refresher sessions to keep up with evolving technologies. Institutional support centres such as TLDC were recognised as valuable, yet inconsistently experienced across departments. Moreover, delays in student training remain a critical barrier. Overall, participants underscored that sustained, equitable, and comprehensive support is essential for effective LMS integration.

Participants generally acknowledged that initial training sessions were provided, particularly during the transition to online learning in 2020. Conversely, P1 and P2 noted that these trainings were often introductory, offering only a surface-level overview rather than in-depth guidance. P1 emphasised the importance of refresher courses, as system updates and new features can quickly outpace users’ knowledge. Similarly, P2 described early training as insufficient and highlighted how only subsequent sessions provided meaningful confidence to use LMS tools effectively. This underscores the need for continuous, iterative professional development rather than one-off workshops.

Training experiences varied widely across participants. P3, for instance, had already acquired LMS skills at a previous institution, while P4 reported that their first training occurred only recently, limiting their ability to effectively engage students through the platform. The lack of consistency in exposure indicates that while training opportunities exist, access and uptake are not evenly distributed among staff. The issue of student training also emerged. P4 expressed concern that students had not been adequately introduced to LMS tools, with some cohorts potentially missing opportunities until their later years of study. This points to a systemic gap in institutional planning, where lecturer training is prioritised but student readiness is delayed, creating barriers to effective teaching and learning integration.

Participants expressed mixed views on institutional support. P5 described the Teaching and Learning Development Centre (TLDC) as highly supportive, providing workshops, one-on-one training, and interventions for both lecturers and students. In contrast, P6 reported only limited training exposure (focused on Blackboard), suggesting that while support exists, not all staff experience it equally. These perspectives highlight both the strengths of institutional support structures and the inconsistencies in their implementation. Despite uneven experiences, there was a shared recognition that training and institutional support are crucial for LMS adoption. P1 and P5 in particular stressed the importance of continuous professional development, whether through workshops or one-on-one interventions, to build confidence and keep pace with technological change. This reflects a broader awareness that institutional backing is central to successful digital integration in higher education.

Regarding LMS challenges, the participants were asked, “What are the main challenges you have experienced when using the LMS (technical, training, support, etc.)?” The findings reveal that LMS adoption is hindered by a combination of systemic and contextual challenges. Insufficient real-time technical support, unstable connectivity, limited device access, and disruptions such as load shedding undermine both teaching and learning continuity. Furthermore, unequal training provision, where lecturers receive more support than students, creates gaps in digital participation and engagement. Issues of platform usability and student disengagement further complicate the integration of LMSs. Collectively, these challenges underscore the need for institutions to provide equitable infrastructural support, strengthen immediate technical assistance, and ensure that both staff and students receive comprehensive digital training.

A recurring concern among participants was the lack of immediate and reliable technical support when encountering difficulties with LMS tools. P1 described frustration at having to navigate “long processes” to access assistance, particularly when the designated LMS manager was unavailable. This often-left staff unable to resolve urgent classroom issues, undermining confidence in digital platforms. While some, such as P5, reported positive experiences with the TLDC, these accounts highlight inconsistencies in institutional responsiveness and accessibility.

Almost all participants emphasised infrastructural barriers as a critical challenge. P1, P2, and P3 stressed poor connectivity, unreliable Wi-Fi in lecture venues and residences, and lack of stable network access as recurring obstacles. P2 in particular highlighted the dual challenges of insufficient data provision and the disruption caused by South Africa’s load shedding, which prevented both lecturers and students from maintaining consistent online engagement. P1 further noted the issue of device inequality, as some students lacked laptops or smartphones, complicating efforts to ensure inclusive participation. P3 highlighted the following:

“Yes, connectivity has been a major concern for some students. Some students will connect even if they are at home. So, it has a problem for them, and some of them do not have proper cell phones or laptops to connect so it does become a problem for some students.”

(P3 Interview Excerpt).

Beyond infrastructural factors, challenges further stemmed from student-related behaviours and readiness. P4 observed that students often logged in to platforms such as Microsoft Teams without actively participating, with some sharing devices in groups, making attendance records unreliable. Similarly, P5 stressed that while lecturers had received adequate training, students had not been given equivalent support, leading to difficulties in navigating LMS features and limiting the effectiveness of online pedagogy. Individual attitudes towards specific platforms further surfaced as a minor but relevant theme. P6 expressed a clear preference for Microsoft Teams over Blackboard, citing personal dissatisfaction with Blackboard’s usability. This highlights that LMS adoption challenges are not only infrastructural but also influenced by personal familiarity, comfort, and perceptions of user-friendliness.

With regard to resistance to adopting technology in teaching, the participants were asked, “Do you face resistance (from yourself or colleagues) to adopting technology in teaching?” Attitudes towards LMS adoption among academics reflect a spectrum ranging from outright resistance to cautious acceptance and eventual advocacy. Resistance is often rooted in generational factors, attachment to traditional pedagogy, and the fear of being displaced by technology. Structural gaps within institutions and the instability of constantly evolving platforms further hinder smooth adoption. Nonetheless, over time, some staff members have shifted from scepticism to recognition of LMS value, particularly in preparing students for digitally driven academic and professional environments. Notably, resistance also emerges in the form of caution, where participants acknowledge benefits but warn against undermining classroom engagement.

The majority of participants identified ongoing resistance among colleagues, often attributed to limited familiarity with digital tools and generational factors. P1 highlighted that some older academics, particularly those in their late 40 s and 50 s, feared that technology might replace traditional teaching practices. This resistance was framed as an attachment to conventional face-to-face methods, with participants preferring to “stand in front of the class and conduct lectures” despite the pedagogical shifts prompted by COVID-19. Similarly, P4 noted that some lecturers still relied exclusively on hard-copy materials, reinforcing the perception that “it is difficult to teach an old dog new trick.” These accounts suggest that resistance is not simply technical but deeply embedded in identity, habits, and professional comfort zones.

Beyond individual reluctance, resistance was also linked to a lack of institutional structures and clear guidance. P2 argued that the absence of formalised LMS policies and usage frameworks gave lecturers excessive flexibility to avoid engagement. Unlike physical classrooms with fixed timetables and equipped venues, online teaching lacked a “proper concrete structure that binds you” to incorporate digital tools. This lack of systemic enforcement meant that adoption was uneven and contingent on individual initiative, slowing institutional transformation. Resistance was also described as situational and linked to the rapid evolution of digital platforms. P3 admitted to moments of personal resistance when faced with upgrades or new features that were difficult to grasp. Although the participant emphasised openness to learning, the sentiment underscores how continuous technological change can produce uncertainty and reluctance, even among those generally willing to adopt new tools. Some participants described personal journeys from initial resistance to eventual acceptance. P5 recalled an early perception that LMS tools were unnecessary given the dominance of face-to-face teaching. However, he later recognised the value of these tools in supplementing instruction, preparing students for digitally integrated futures, and ensuring teaching continuity during disruptions. This shift reflects a broader narrative of adaptation, where exposure and necessity helped overcome initial doubts.

Finally, resistance was not always framed as rejection but as caution about unintended consequences. P4 expressed concern that if LMS adoption became too extensive, undergraduate students might avoid physical classes altogether, reducing face-to-face engagement. In contrast, the same participant acknowledged that postgraduate students, particularly working professionals, could benefit significantly from online flexibility. This highlights how resistance can sometimes represent a nuanced critique of balance rather than outright refusal.

4.3. Institutional Support, Training, and Inclusivity (RQ3)

With regard to LMS tools support for students, the participants were asked, “How well do LMS tools support students with disabilities or those from disadvantaged backgrounds?” The findings reveal a mixed picture of accessibility and inclusivity in LMS adoption. On the one hand, the system offers important benefits, particularly by providing exposure to digital technologies, enhancing flexibility for mobility-impaired students, and helping bridge socio-economic inequalities. On the other hand, significant challenges remain: the lack of built-in accessibility features for visually impaired or learning-difficulty students, inadequate institutional structures for sustained support, and limited lecturer awareness of inclusive tools. Inclusivity, therefore, is uneven; while LMS holds promise for disadvantaged groups, systemic and design shortcomings risk reinforcing existing inequities.

Concerns were raised about the extent to which current LMS tools accommodate students with disabilities. P1 argued that the platforms are “not compatible or user friendly” for visually impaired students or those with learning difficulties, emphasising a lack of built-in accessibility features. Similarly, P5 acknowledged limited awareness of LMS functions designed for students with disabilities, highlighting a gap in both system design and lecturer training. These accounts suggest that inclusivity remains underdeveloped in practice, particularly for students with specific impairments.

Despite these challenges, some participants viewed LMS as an important tool for exposing students from disadvantaged backgrounds to technology. P2 highlighted the benefits of students being introduced to digital tools early in their academic journey, framing this exposure as critical preparation for future employability. This participant further pointed to the support provided by student IT assistants, which helps to mitigate inequalities arising from limited device ownership or lack of digital skills. LMS adoption, therefore, was seen as a means of bridging the digital divide, even though structural disadvantages persisted.

In contrast, some participants did not perceive accessibility as a significant issue. P3, for instance, argued that LMS would not be problematic for students with disabilities provided they had the “right infrastructure”, such as laptops and internet connectivity. This perspective reflects an assumption that barriers are primarily infrastructural rather than embedded within platform design or pedagogy. LMS was additionally identified as particularly beneficial for students with physical impairments. P4 emphasised that online learning allowed wheelchair users and others with mobility difficulties to learn from home without navigating inaccessible campus infrastructure. This flexibility was described as “a huge blast” for such students, especially when compared to pre-COVID-19 circumstances where attendance at physical venues was compulsory. While some institutional mechanisms were in place to address inequities, their adequacy was questioned. P5 pointed to digital literacy training offered during orientation to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds but admitted that these efforts may not be sufficient without ongoing support. Similarly, P6 emphasised that LMS flexibility benefited students who were not funded by National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), allowing them to study from home without incurring additional costs. These reflections indicate that while initiatives exist, more targeted interventions are needed to address both disability and socio-economic disparities.

For integration of LMS with other systems, several participants highlighted that the current LMS lacks effective integration with core university systems, particularly the Integrated Tertiary Software (ITS) used for grading and student records. The participants were asked, “How well does the LMS integrate with other systems (e.g., grading systems, communication platforms) at your institution?” P1 explained that marks must be captured manually from the LMS into ITS, a process that is not only time-consuming but also prone to human error and delays. Similarly, P3 confirmed that even when online tests are conducted, lecturers still have to manually input grades into ITS. These insights suggest that the absence of seamless system synchronisation undermines efficiency and accuracy in academic administration.

In contrast, P2 expressed a more positive view, noting that the coexistence of manual and digital processes creates a sense of balance and assurance. According to this participant, the ability to double-check records across platforms and use multiple channels for communication ensures that information reaches students reliably and provides lecturers with backup options. This reflects a transitional phase in which lecturers still find value in maintaining both systems concurrently. Some participants (P4 and P5) acknowledged limited personal engagement with the LMS for grading or integration-related functions. P4 had no experience in this regard, while P5 noted that LMS integration at the institution is still in its infancy. According to P5, institutional systems are not yet fully aligned with LMS platforms, partly due to the relatively recent adoption of these technologies. This participant emphasised the need for ongoing training and institutional commitment to enable full-scale integration in the future.

Despite current shortcomings, participants recognised growing institutional interest in advancing LMS integration. P5 expressed optimism that with increased adoption and use, universities would eventually prioritise alignment between the LMS and broader administrative systems. This indicates an awareness of the strategic importance of integration for the long-term efficiency of teaching, learning, and assessment processes.

Participants emphasised the importance of clear institutional frameworks to normalise LMS use. The question asked to participants was, “If you could improve one aspect of the LMS or how it’s used at your institution, what would it be?” They recommended that universities integrate LMS-based teaching into official timetables and workloads to avoid perceptions of online teaching as “less legitimate”. As P2 explained:

“If we can… combine it in our timetables… two hours face to face, two hours online, and it’s written down… no one will question whatever, because it’s written down.”

(P2 Interview Excerpt).

Such formalisation would provide transparency and reduce tensions between face-to-face and online modalities. The need for ongoing training for both staff and students was strongly highlighted. P3 stressed:

“I think it will be continuous training for staff, especially as we know that each technology changes every time.”

(P3 Interview Excerpt).

Similarly, P4 underscored the importance of phased training, recognising that many lecturers still “need to crawl before they run”, while students also require support to navigate LMS tools effectively. Several participants raised concerns about insufficient support services and infrastructure. P3 suggested the creation of a responsive helpdesk, while P5 argued for decentralised support:

“If they can also decentralise it to faculties so that colleagues can find the support within easy reach… that can also improve the uptake on the side of lecturers.”

(P3 Interview Excerpt).

In addition, issues such as poor internet connectivity, lack of devices, and reliance on mobile phones remain barriers to effective LMS engagement (P4). While most participants acknowledged the benefits of their current LMS, some felt restricted by the institution’s insistence on a single platform. P5 noted:

“The university seems to be tied up with only one LMS… if it can also support those who are willing to use Moodle… maybe the second one as well.”

(P5 Interview Excerpt).

This suggests a call for greater flexibility in allowing multiple LMS solutions, or at least interoperability, to accommodate staff familiar with different systems. Participants also pointed to the need for investment in resources to ensure equity of access. P4 highlighted students’ reliance on mobile phones and the importance of providing laptops, while P6 directly pointed to “resources” as a priority.

5. Discussions

This study sought to understand how lecturers at a South African UoT experience the adoption and integration of LMSs within a resource-constrained environment. The discussion is structured around the study’s three research questions and interpreted through the lens of the proposed equity-sensitive TPACK framework. This framework foregrounds the interaction between technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge while explicitly embedding equity, inclusion, and institutional readiness as mediating conditions for technology integration.

5.1. Lecturers’ Lived Experiences of LMS Adoption (RQ1)

The findings revealed that lecturers’ experiences of LMS adoption were deeply situated in contextual realities marked by infrastructural and pedagogical constraints. Participants valued LMSs for their potential to support flexible and blended learning but faced challenges in sustaining engagement due to bandwidth limitations and uneven institutional support. These experiences resonate with earlier studies that highlight how contextual inequities shape the pedagogical use of technology in Global South settings (Adarkwah, 2021). From an equity-sensitive TPACK perspective, these experiences illustrate that technology adoption is not merely a question of digital competence but a negotiation between pedagogical intent and structural constraint.

5.2. Institutional, Infrastructural, and Personal Factors Shaping LMS Integration (RQ2)

Institutional policy gaps, limited training, and inconsistent access to infrastructure emerged as significant barriers to effective LMS use. Lecturers often had to adapt their teaching strategies creatively to overcome unreliable connectivity and limited student device access. Such adaptations included simplifying course materials and adopting low-data teaching practices, echoing research across the Global South that links technological innovation to adaptive pedagogy (Wang et al., 2024; Memon & Memon, 2025). The equity-sensitive TPACK framework helps explain how these conditions mediate the interplay of knowledge domains, where technological knowledge is constrained by infrastructural inequities, and pedagogical choices are driven by access realities rather than design preferences.

5.3. Institutional Support, Professional Development, and Inclusivity (RQ3)

Participants consistently emphasised the need for sustained institutional support and professional development. Although formal training opportunities existed, they were often fragmented or focused on tool functionality rather than pedagogical integration. These findings reinforce international calls for equity-driven professional development that moves beyond basic digital skills to inclusive digital pedagogy (UNESCO, 2024; DHET, 2023). The equity-sensitive TPACK framework extends this discussion by framing inclusivity not as an add-on but as a mediating construct integral to technology integration. In this sense, inclusivity encompasses both human (digital literacy, accessibility) and structural (infrastructure, support) dimensions that jointly determine whether digital transformation in UoTs can be sustainable and just.

5.4. Synthesis and Theoretical Reflection

Across these three dimensions, this study demonstrates that the adoption of LMSs in South African UoTs is best conceptualised as a socio-technical process, wherein technology, pedagogy, and content are influenced by the intersecting factors of equity, infrastructure, and institutional readiness. The equity-sensitive TPACK framework offers an analytical lens for capturing this complexity and extends conventional models of technology integration by explicitly positioning inequality as a central analytical construct. As illustrated in Figure 2, the equity-sensitive TPACK framework builds upon Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) original model by incorporating contextual equity mediators. This reconceptualisation is of practical and theoretical significance, providing guidance for researchers and practitioners seeking to develop inclusive digital learning environments. Figure 2 presents the equity-sensitive TPACK framework developed in this study, highlighting how equity-orientated mediators shape technology integration in resource-constrained educational contexts.

The following section elaborates on the practical implications of this framework for policymakers, academic developers, and institutional leaders.

6. Implications for Policy and Practice

The findings of this study underscore the importance of equity, contextual responsiveness, and institutional readiness in technology adoption within South African UoTs. Building on the proposed equity-sensitive TPACK framework in Figure 2, several implications emerge for stakeholders across different levels of higher education.

The framework offers several practical pathways for action. For policymakers, the framework provides a diagnostic tool for identifying structural inequities that constrain digital learning. It suggests that digital inclusion policies should move beyond hardware provision to address affordability, accessibility, and digital competence. Integration of the equity-sensitive TPACK perspective into the DHET digital transformation and skills strategies could support the systematic monitoring of equity indicators such as connectivity, device access, and staff training outcomes. For academic developers, it highlights the need to embed equity-orientated principles into professional development and curriculum design. Digital pedagogical training should be iterative, inclusive, and aligned with lecturers’ varying levels of digital competence. Embedding the framework into capacity-building programmes can help lecturers conceptualise technology use not only as a pedagogical choice but also as a social justice practice. For institutional leaders, the framework offers an operational model for aligning digital transformation plans with equity goals. This includes supporting low-bandwidth teaching innovations, investing in LMS accessibility features, and ensuring that staff development budgets prioritise under-resourced faculties. Institutional adoption of equity-sensitive TPACK can thus serve as both a planning instrument and an evaluative lens for inclusive digitalisation.

Collectively, these pathways demonstrate how the equity-sensitive TPACK framework can bridge the persistent gap between policy aspirations and classroom realities in resource-constrained contexts. Beyond South Africa, the framework offers a transferable lens for examining inclusive digital transformation in other Global South settings, contributing to ongoing international dialogues on equitable educational technology. Theoretically, the study advances the TPACK framework by proposing an equity-sensitive TPACK, situating equity and inclusion as central mediating conditions of technology adoption in resource-constrained settings.

7. Conclusions, Limitations, Future Directions and Research Gaps

This study explored lecturers’ lived experiences of LMS adoption in a South African UoT using an interpretative phenomenological approach. By extending the TPACK framework through an equity lens, the study contributes to both theory and practice in inclusive educational technology. The equity-sensitive TPACK framework foregrounds access, infrastructure, and institutional readiness as critical mediating factors in technology integration, offering an actionable lens for promoting digital equity in higher education. While limited to one institution and a small sample, the study provides idiographic depth that illuminates broader systemic challenges across the Global South. Future research could test and refine the equity-sensitive TPACK model across diverse institutional contexts and explore its application in student and administrative experiences of LMS use.

This study, while providing valuable insights, is subject to several limitations. First, the research was conducted within a single UoT, which limits the generalisability of the findings to other South African higher education institutions, particularly traditional universities and comprehensive universities that may have different resources and cultures of technology adoption. Second, the small sample size (six lecturers) restricts the breadth of perspectives captured, though the phenomenological approach justifies depth over breadth. The scope of the study was limited to one faculty in a single UoT, with a small sample size and no triangulation. While these factors limit generalisability, they are consistent with the idiographic focus of IPA, which prioritises depth of understanding over breadth. Third, the study relied on self-reported data from semi-structured interviews, which may be influenced by personal bias, selective recall, or socially desirable responses. Finally, the study primarily focused on lecturers’ perspectives, excluding other stakeholders such as students, administrators, and IT support staff, whose experiences could have provided a more holistic understanding of LMS adoption.

Future research should adopt a multi-institutional design across diverse UoTs and traditional universities in South Africa to capture comparative insights and enhance external validity. Expanding participant groups to include students, administrators, and policymakers will provide a comprehensive view of LMS adoption dynamics. Future studies should compare LMS integration across multiple UoTs and between UoTs and traditional universities, both within South Africa and across the African continent. Such research would highlight contextual differences in institutional readiness and provide insights into scalable strategies for digital inclusion. Additionally, longitudinal studies are needed to track the evolving role of LMS over time, especially in light of rapid technological change and the increasing prominence of blended and hybrid learning models. As universities increasingly experiment with AI, adaptive learning systems, and mobile-first platforms, future research should explore how these innovations can complement or complicate existing LMS platforms in resource-constrained environments. For instance, AI-driven analytics may enhance personalised learning, but their success depends on reliable infrastructure and data governance policies. Methodologically, future research could combine qualitative approaches with quantitative surveys or learning analytics data to triangulate findings and provide stronger empirical evidence on the impact of LMS use.

Several gaps emerge from this study that warrant further exploration. First, while the findings reveal infrastructural and digital literacy challenges, there is limited understanding of how these barriers specifically shape student learning outcomes over the long term in UoTs. Second, the role of emerging technologies, such as AI, adaptive learning tools, and predictive analytics, in augmenting LMS effectiveness within resource-constrained contexts remains underexplored. Third, there is a paucity of research on inclusive design and accessibility of LMS platforms for students with disabilities and disadvantaged backgrounds in the South African context, despite its importance for equity. Finally, while institutional policies and support structures are recognised as critical, little empirical work has systematically examined the relationship between policy frameworks, institutional culture, and lecturers’ TPACK configurations in shaping technology adoption at UoTs.