International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education / Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance

Vol. 41 No. 1 (2026)
Research Articles

Technology and Digital Literacy as Drivers of Student Success in an Open and Distance eLearning Environment

HTML PDF
Kazeem Ajasa Badaru
Institute for Open and Distance Learning (IODL), University of South Africa, Pretoria
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2026.v41.i1.1381

Published 2026-04-30

How to Cite

Badaru, K. A. (2026). Technology and Digital Literacy as Drivers of Student Success in an Open and Distance eLearning Environment. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 41(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2026.v41.i1.1381
Copyright Notice

Abstract

This article examines the importance of technology and digital literacy to student success in an Open and Distance e-Learning (ODeL) environment. The existing literature often oversimplifies digital literacy, failing to examine how it affects a student's technological proficiency and, consequently, their success in ODeL contexts. This indicates a gap in understanding the significance of digital literacy and technology for student success in an ODeL environment. This paper employed a narrative literature review, using connectivism as the theoretical framework, to explore how digital literacy and technology are crucial to students' success in ODeL and electronically mediated environments. Connectivism emerged as a theory for the digital age, positing that technology and socialization are network phenomena that influence learning. Results demonstrate how connectivism explains the relationship between technology, digital literacy, and student success in ODeL institutions. Students from diverse backgrounds can access education anytime, from any location, given the integration of technology and digital literacy into ODeL practices, which enhances accessibility and flexibility and enriches learning experiences. It is recommended that educational policies require ODeL curricula to include digital literacy training, equipping students with the skills they need to thrive in technologically advanced learning environments. The study concludes that equitable access to technology and the development of digital literacy are imperative for students to succeed in ODeL environments and to reduce academic achievement gaps. This article advances a connectivist synthesis of technology and digital literacy functioning interdependently as cohesive drivers of student success in the ODeL context.

Keywords: Connectivism, Digital literacy, Open Distance and eLearning, Student success, Technology

Technologie et littératie numérique comme moteurs de la réussite étudiante dans un environnement de formation ouverte et à distance (FOAD)

Résumé : Cet article examine l’importance de la technologie et de la littératie numérique pour la réussite des étudiants dans un environnement de formation ouverte et à distance (FOAD). La littérature existante simplifie souvent excessivement les niveaux de littératie numérique, sans analyser de manière approfondie la façon dont celle-ci influence la maîtrise technologique des étudiants et, par conséquent, leur réussite dans des contextes de FOAD. Cela révèle une lacune dans la compréhension du rôle et de l’importance de la littératie numérique et de la technologie pour la réussite étudiante dans un environnement de FOAD. Cet article s’appuie sur une revue narrative de la littérature et mobilise le connectivisme comme cadre théorique afin d’explorer comment la littératie numérique et la technologie contribuent à la réussite des étudiants dans les environnements de FOAD et dans les contextes d’apprentissage médiatisés par les technologies. Le connectivisme s’est imposé comme une théorie adaptée à l’ère numérique, postulant que la technologie et la socialisation constituent des phénomènes en réseau qui influencent les processus d’apprentissage. Les résultats montrent comment le connectivisme permet d’expliquer la relation entre la technologie, la littératie numérique et la réussite étudiante dans les institutions de FOAD. Grâce à l’intégration de la technologie et de la littératie numérique dans les pratiques de FOAD, des étudiants issus de milieux divers peuvent accéder à l’éducation à tout moment et depuis n’importe quel lieu, ce qui renforce l’accessibilité et la flexibilité tout en enrichissant les expériences d’apprentissage. Il est recommandé que les politiques éducatives exigent que les programmes de FOAD intègrent une formation à la littératie numérique, afin de doter les étudiants des compétences nécessaires pour évoluer dans des environnements d’apprentissage technologiquement avancés. L’étude conclut que l’accès équitable aux technologies et le développement de la littératie numérique sont essentiels pour permettre aux étudiants de réussir dans les environnements de FOAD et pour réduire les écarts de réussite académique. Cet article propose ainsi une synthèse connectiviste dans laquelle la technologie et la littératie numérique fonctionnent de manière interdépendante comme des moteurs cohérents de la réussite étudiante dans le contexte de la FOAD.

Mots-clés : connectivisme, littératie numérique, formation ouverte et à distance, réussite étudiante, technologie.

HTML PDF

References

  1. Ariawan, V. A. N., & Pratiwi, I. M. (2020, December). Digital literacy abilities of students in distance learning. In 4th International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (ICOLLITE 2020) (pp. 592–598). Atlantis Press. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125949379.pdf
  2. Ayalon, A., & Aharony, N. (2024). Transactional distance and connectivism learning theories during crisis times. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2024.2413131
  3. Badaru, K. A., & Adu, E. O. (2022). Platformisation of education: An analysis of South African universities' learning management systems. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 7(2), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2022.10
  4. Badaru, K. A., & Mphahlele, R. S. (2023). Effects of emerging technologies on African development: A narrative review on selected African countries. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 8(3), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2023.19
  5. Barnett, J., McPherson, V., & Sandieson, R. M. (2013). Connected teaching and learning: The uses and implications of connectivism in an online class. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 685–698. https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/download/243/757/
  6. Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 98–118. https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/irrodl/1900-v1-n1-irrodl05132/1067617ar.pdf
  7. Boutsika, M., & Kadianaki, A. (2019). Drivers and barriers to distance learning implementation: A case study at TEI of Athens. Degree Project, Linnaeus University. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1385867/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  8. Calvert, C. E. (2014). Developing a model and applications for probabilities of student success: A case study of predictive analytics. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 29(2), 160–173.
  9. Carroll, L. S. L. (2017). A comprehensive definition of technology from an ethological perspective. Social Sciences, 6(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6040126
  10. Clarà, M., & Barberà, E. (2014). Three problems with the connectivist conception of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(3), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12040
  11. Couros, A. (2009). Open, connected, social–implications for educational design. Campus-wide Information Systems, 26(3), 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650740910967393
  12. Deja, M., Rak, D., & Bell, B. (2021). Digital transformation readiness: Perspectives on academia and library outcomes in information literacy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(5), 102403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102403
  13. Dorsah, P. (2021). Pre-service teachers' readiness for emergency remote learning in the wake of COVID-19. European Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/9557
  14. Doucet, A., Netolicky, D., Timmers, K., & Tuscano, F. J. (2020). Thinking about pedagogy in an unfolding pandemic. Education International and UNESCO, 2. https://issuu.com/educationinternational/docs/2020_research_covid-19_eng
  15. Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays on meaning and learning networks. National Research Council. https://www.downes.ca/files/books/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf
  16. Downes, S. (2019). Recent work in connectivism. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning (EURODL), 22(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2019-0014
  17. Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnston, M. (2013). Connectivism as a digital age learning theory. The International HETL Review, 2013 (Special Issue), 4–13. https://www.hetl.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HETLReview2013SpecialIssueArticle1.pdf
  18. Ervianti, E., Sampelolo, R., & Pratama, M. P. (2023). The influence of digital literacy on student learning. Klasikal: Journal of Education, Language Teaching and Science, 5(2), 358–365. https://journalfkipuniversitasbosowa.org/index.php/klasikal/article/download/878/364
  19. Fenner-McAdoo, E. (2019). What is digital literacy and how to use it in the classroom? https://www.graduateprogram.org/2019/10/what-is-digital-literacy-and-how-to-use-it-in-the-classroom/
  20. Ferrari, R. (2015). Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing, 24(4), 230–235. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480615z.000000000329
  21. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. John Wiley.
  22. Goldie, J. G. S. (2016). Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age? Medical Teacher, 38(10), 1064–1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173661
  23. Hendricks, G. P. (2019). Connectivism as a learning theory and its relation to open distance education. Progressio, 41(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-5895/4773
  24. Hettithanthri, U., & Hansen, P. (2022). Design studio practice in the context of architectural education: A narrative literature review. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(4), 2343–2364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09694-2
  25. Hughes, J. (Ed.). (2012). SAGE internet research methods. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446268513
  26. Jahan, N., Naveed, S., Zeshan, M., & Tahir, M. A. (2016). How to conduct a systematic review: A narrative literature review. Cureus, 8(11). http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.864
  27. Johnston, N. (2020). The shift towards digital literacy in Australian university libraries: Developing a digital literacy framework. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 69(1), 93–101. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24750158.2020.1712638
  28. Karagul, B. I., Seker, M., & Aykut, C. (2021). Investigating students’ digital literacy levels during online education due to COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 13(21), 118–78. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111878
  29. Karagözoğlu, N., & Gezer, U. (2022). An investigation of the relationship between digital literacy levels of social studies teacher candidates and their attitudes towards distance education. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 17(1), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2022.248.11
  30. Karaman Aksentijević, N., Ježić, Z., & Zaninović, P. A. (2021). The effects of information and communication technology (ICT) use and human development—a macroeconomic approach. Economies, 9(3), 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9030128
  31. Karpati, A. (2011). Digital literacy in education. UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education: Policy Brief. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000214485
  32. Kasımoğlu, S., Bahçelerli, N. M., & Çelik, M. U. (2022). Digital literacy during COVID-19 distance education; evaluation of communication-based problems in line with student opinions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 809171. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.809171
  33. Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(3), 1–13. https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/irrodl/1900-v1-n1-irrodl05521/1071651ar.pdf
  34. Kotzé, D. A. (2021). Theoretical framework for open distance learning: A South African case study. The Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning, 16(1), 10–23. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/ejc-jitl1-v16-n1-a4
  35. Kropf, D. C. (2013). Connectivism: 21st century's new learning theory. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 16(2), 13–24.
  36. Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Sage.
  37. Latip, A., Sutantri, N., & Hardinata, A. (2022). The effect of digital literacy on student learning outcomes in chemistry learning. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA, 8(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.21831/jipi.v8i2.40567
  38. Laux, K., (2018). A theoretical understanding of the literature on student voice in the science classroom. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(1), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1353963
  39. Letseka, M., & Karel, K. (2015). Pass rates in open distance learning (ODL). In Open distance learning (ODL) in South Africa (pp. 65–75). Nova Publishers. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Moeketsi-Letseka/publication/272182871
  40. Lopez Islas, J. R. (2013). Digital literacy and academic success in online education for underprivileged communities: The prep@ net case [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin]. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/20948/LOPEZISLAS-DISSERTATION-2013.pdf?sequence=1
  41. Lubbe, J. C. (2016). Digital fluency of faculty members at an ODL institution. Progressio, 38(2), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.25159/0256-8853/1505
  42. Mahlangu, V. P. (2018). The good, the bad, and the ugly of distance learning in higher education. Trends in E-learning, 10, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75702
  43. Mantiri, O., Hibbert, G. K., & Jacobs, J. (2019). Digital literacy in ESL classroom. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(5), 1301–1305. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070515
  44. Maphosa, C., & Bhebhe, S. (2019). Digital literacy: A must for open distance and e-learning (ODEL) students. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(10), 185–199. https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/viewFile/2274/4913
  45. Maré, S., & Mutezo, A. T. (2021). The effectiveness of e-tutoring in an open and distance e-learning environment: Evidence from the University of South Africa. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 36(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2020.1717941
  46. Mtombeni, B. (2020). The use of technology in an Open Distance Learning (ODL) ecosystem to achieve authentic learning [Master’s thesis. University of Johannesburg (South Africa)]. https://hdl.handle.net/10210/473779
  47. Netanda, R. S. (2020). Supporting learning through learning management systems in an ODL environment amid Covid-19: Technology accessibility and student success. In Ljupka Naumovska (ed.), The Impact of COVID-19 on the international education system (pp. 97–114). Proud Pen. https://doi.org/10.51432/978-1-8381524-0-6_7
  48. Olugbara, C. T., Letseka, M., & Akintolu, M. (2023). Student support as a panacea for enhancing student success in an open distance learning environment. Journal of Educators Online, 20(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2023.20.3.9
  49. Olusola, A. J., & Alaba, S. O. (2011). Globalization, information and communication technologies (ICTs) and open/distance learning in Nigeria: Trends, issues and solution. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 66–77. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/156035
  50. Paré G, & Kitsiou S. (2017). Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In Lau F, & Kuziemsky C. (Eds.), Handbook of eHealth evaluation: An evidence-based approach [Internet]. University of Victoria. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/
  51. Pavel, A. P., Fruth, A., & Neacsu, M. N. (2015). ICT and e-learning–catalysts for innovation and quality in higher education. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 704–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00409-8
  52. Pitsoe, V., & Baloyi, G. (2015). Conceptions of success in open distance learning. In M. Letseka (Ed.), Open distance learning (ODL) in South Africa (pp. 91–104). Nova Science Publishers. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Moeketsi-Letseka/publication/272182871
  53. Pradhan, R. P., Mallik, G., & Bagchi, T. P. (2018). Information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure and economic growth: A causality evinced by cross-country panel data. IIMB Management Review, 30(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2018.01.001
  54. Record-Lemon, R. M., & Buchanan, M. J. (2017). Trauma-informed practices in schools: A narrative literature review. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 51(4), 286–305. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/rcc/article/download/61156/pdf
  55. Rother, E. T. (2007). Systematic literature review X narrative review. Acta Paul Enfem, 20(2), vii. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-21002007000200001
  56. Rumrill Jr, P. D., & Fitzgerald, S. M. (2001). Using narrative literature reviews to build a scientific knowledge base. Work, 16(2), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2001-00173
  57. Şahin, M. (2012). Pros and cons of connectivism as a learning theory. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 2(4), 437–454.
  58. Saidi, R. M., Sharip, A. A., Abd Rahim, N. Z., Zulkifli, Z. A., & Zain, S. M. M. (2021). Evaluating students' preferences of Open and Distance Learning (ODL) tools. Procedia Computer Science, 179(4), 955–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.085
  59. Santos, G. M., Ramos, E. M., Escola, J., & Reis, M. J. (2019). ICT literacy and school performance. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 18(2), 19–39. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1211197.pdf
  60. Santos, A. I., & Serpa, S. (2017). The importance of promoting digital literacy in higher education. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 5(6), 90–93. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v5i6.2330
  61. Schatzberg, E. (2018). Technology: Critical history of a concept. University of Chicago Press.
  62. Schwartz, M. (Ed.). (2019). Digital citizenship toolkit. Ryerson University Toronto. Pressbooks. https://pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca/digcit/
  63. Scott, I. (2018). Designing the South African higher education system for student success. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.24085/jsaa.v6i1.3062
  64. Shrivastava, A. (2018). Using connectivism theory and technology for knowledge creation in cross-cultural communication. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2061
  65. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Elearnspace. https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PPP130/DIMENTE09/elearnspace.%20Connectivism_%20...pdf
  66. Smidt, H., Thornton, M., & Abhari, K. (2017). The future of social learning: A novel approach to connectivism. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/0eda9879-4252-46e7-89cb-f125cbceea1a/content
  67. Tan, W. L., Samsudin, M. A., Ismail, M. E., & Ahmad, N. J. (2020). Gender differences in students’ achievements in learning concepts of electricity via STEAM integrated approach utilizing scratch. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 78(3), 423–448. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.423
  68. Tang, C. M., & Chaw, L. Y. (2016). Digital literacy: A prerequisite for effective learning in a blended learning environment? Electronic Journal of E-learning, 14(1), 54–65. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1099109.pdf
  69. Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2015). A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(1), 112 – 137. http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol37/iss1/6
  70. Udeogalanya, V. (2022). Aligning digital literacy and student academic success: Lessons learned from COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Higher Education Management, 8(2), 54–65. https://www.ijhem.com/cdn/article_file/2022-02-28-21-34-18-PM.pdf
  71. Watson, E. (2020). #Education: The potential impact of social media and hashtag ideology on the classroom. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 5(2), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.05.02.3
  72. Yorke, M. (2004). Retention, persistence and success in on‐campus higher education, and their enhancement in open and distance learning. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 19(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268051042000177827
  73. Yustika, G. P., & Iswati, S. (2020). Digital literacy in formal online education: A short review. Dinamika Pendidikan, 15(1), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.15294/dp.v15i1.23779
  74. Zuhairi, A., Karthikeyan, N., & Priyadarshana, S. T. (2020). Supporting students to succeed in open and distance learning in the Open University of Sri Lanka and Universitas Terbuka Indonesia. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 15(1), 13–35. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAOUJ-09-2019-0038/full/pdf