Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mixed-methods analysis explores data privacy and algorithmic bias impact on LMS use in rural settings.
Digital transformation in higher education has positioned Learning Management Systems (LMS) as vital platforms for student learning and academic engagement. However, in rural university contexts, LMS adoption by students is shaped not only by access to technology, but also by deeper cultural and ethical dynamics. This study explores how cultural factors and ethical concerns, particularly data privacy and algorithmic biasaffect students’ adoption and utilization of LMS in rural South African universities. Guided by the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) frameworks, the research draws on mixed-methods data to investigate how students interact with LMS under conditions of infrastructural limitation, sociocultural complexity, and digital vulnerability. The findings reveal that students’ acceptance and sustained use of LMS platforms are closely tied to performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, and perceived ease of use, in line with UTAUT. However, cultural relevance, language barriers, and distrust in how personal data are used significantly moderate these perceptions. From a TPACK perspective, students are more engaged when content is designed in a way that aligns with their lived experiences and is delivered through culturally responsive digital pedagogy. Ethical concerns, particularly regarding algorithmic profiling and lack of transparency in LMS analytics, further influence students’ sense of safety and inclusion. The study argues that effective LMS integration for rural students requires more than just functional accessit demands ethical sensitivity, cultural alignment, and pedagogical intentionality. By situating student experiences within TPACK and UTAUT frameworks, the research offers a holistic understanding of LMS adoption, calling for institutional strategies that honour student agency, protect digital rights, and support equitable participation in the digital learning ecosystem.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ajani et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: