A critical analysis of e-learning and distance education from a social justice perspective

As a lecturer in Malawi and South Africa, my experience has shown that faculty and students encounter significant challenges while navigating different emerging technological platforms. Despite such challenges, governments continue to urge higher educational institutions (HEIs) to fast-track technologies known as the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) into their pedagogies. These calls are coming at a time when institutions in Malawi, South Africa and Zimbabwe are still struggling to meet the minimum essential resources such as textbooks, chalkboards, stationery, toiletries, and others due to reduced state funding towards universities (minimalism) and delayed subventions which sometimes take three to four months on end.

While the role of educational technologies is not more pronounced in Malawi, in South Africa, the government has taken immensely recognized technologies as the best tools for preparing students for the future world of work (Department of Basic Education (DBE), 2003, 2004, 2015). In Malawi, the MW Vision 2023; National Planning Commission (2020a, b), a blueprint that seeks to guide Malawi’s development agendas, has three core pillars, which are (1) Agricultural Productivity and Commercialization, (2) Industrialization and (3) Urbanization. Neither have any of these pillars emphasized the quality of education, nor have they mentioned educational technologies and their role in education. Despite being a 92-page document, the MW2063 has dedicated a small section to information communication technologies (ICTs), which are also cursory and pedestrian (see extract below).

A further search for guiding policies on 4IR in education demonstrates that ICTs have been cursorily treated and mainly inferred in Malawi. For example, the Malawi National ICT for Development (ICT4D) Policy foreword states:

Although 4IR in education is cursorily mentioned on page 10 (see Ministry of Information and Tourism, 2006), there needs to be more on how it can be implemented, especially in educational contexts, and its implications on epistemological access and justice. For example, point 3.2.1 of this policy contends that since Malawi has high illiteracy levels, there is huge pressure on social expenditure to provide adequate quality ICT infrastructure for educational purposes. It also asserts that ICT4D will increase the information base by using ICTs within different educational contexts, ensuring that education systems have adequate computers. The policy, however, talks of collaborations and accreditation incoherently, leaving readers speculating whether it is talking about ICT as an instructional delivery strategy or ICT as an economic driver.

In the context of South Africa, various policies such as the National Development Plan on Digitization of Education and the Operation Phakisa Initiative (OPI) and the White Paper on e-Education (See Sehlako, Chibambo, & Divala, 2023; Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Republic of South Africa (DPME), 2014; DBE, 2004) have clearly articulated how, when, who and what should be done during the implementation of 4IR-aided education in schools. For example, the Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Republic of South Africa (DPME) (2014) defined OPI as the South African government’s digitization initiative to fast-track solutions in critical development areas. This means OPI was aimed to address issues highlighted in the National Development Plan (NDP) (2030), such as poverty, unemployment and inequalities. Within the NDP, OPI emerged as an innovative approach to translate these plans into concrete actions through dedicated collaborations and delivery systems. Phakisa means “hurry up”, highlighting the government’s urgency to deliver critical programs through digitization. Through collaborations, OPI did robust contextual analyses, prioritized settings, planned interventions and designed delivery systems. These collaborations, also known as laboratories, had managed to define the strategies, targets, implementation plans and success indicators. These labs were further monitored and evaluated to effectively mitigate emerging successes and challenges.

In the USA, the government came up with exclusive action plans and implemented and evaluated 4IR projects in education. The envisaged successes and challenges were mirrored alongside the best possible mitigating solutions (United States of America Office of Education Technologies (USoET), 2017), and the results were successful 4IR-aided education programs. The US and South Africa hatched their 4IR projects after extensive research and thoughtful plans to minimize inconsistencies during implementation. Unlike the MW2063 and ICT4D policies, South Africa and the US ICT projects had well-laid-out goals, objectives, strategies, responsibilities, timelines and indicators. These were done recognizing that many countries have now accepted 4IR due to the imminent need for open, distance and e-Learning (ODeL) given the rise of the COVID-19 pandemics, incarcerations, wars and natural disasters (Vurayi, 2021).

Accordingly, the University of Malawi (UNIMA E-Campus), Mzuzu University (MZUNI ODeL), Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR) and the Malawi University of Business and Applied Sciences (MUBAS ODeL) have their policies emphasizing digitization for increasing access to higher education (see Chibambo, 2023a; MUBAS, 2023; Chizengo, 2023; Mzuzu University (MZUNI), 2023; University of Malawi (UNIMA), 2023). While these policies spell out intentions to adopt 4IR in HEIs, it needs to be clarified how Malawi will best implement 4IR-aided education given the inadequacies in the ICT4D and MW2063 policies. This also gets complicated when we consider that HEIs in Malawi are socioeconomically handicapped as they operate like miserable wretches due to limited funding from the state (minimalism), paralyzing them from effectively resourcing their programs. Even when well-wishers provide computers (see Zozie, 2020; Chibambo & Jere, 2018), such items cannot meet the growing student-teacher population and are unreliable and liable to high maintenance costs (Chimpololo, 2010). This raises further questions on how the so-called e-campuses can best be actualized within the depraved education context of Malawi. South African HEIs nonetheless have collaborated with the private sector and research institutions such that their classrooms, librariesand laboratories are fully equipped with modern technologies, and needy students and academics are usually provided with free computers and free technical support and maintenance (see Sehlako et al., 2023; Chibambo & Divala, 2022).

Accordingly, this paper sought to explore the possibilities for the total adoption of 4IR in Malawi’s HEIs and the implications of such a decision on epistemological access and justice. Drawing from South Africa, Zimbabwe and other cases, the paper further analyses the claims about the invincibility of 4IR and their myth-making mills. It finally suggests possible solutions for reconstituting epistemologically just and equitable 4IR-aided education within Malawi, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

According to Munthali, 2006 and Zozie, 2020, ICTs in Malawi are essential for sustainable national development goals due to their transformative prowess at both social and economic levels. Munthali argues that since technologies have significantly transformed every aspect of human life, HEIs should embrace technologies unless they are willing to remain behind. Arguments like these have given rise to terms such as the information age, information society and knowledge economy, all of which have had serious implications in redefining epistemological access to knowledge, the role of knowledge and how such knowledge should be accessed (Zozie, 2020; Mohee & Putty- Rogbeer, 2020; Friesen, 2008). While acknowledging the digital divide and socioeconomic disparities in education, Munthali still pampers ICTs for their positive impact on commerce, health, agriculture and climate change, improving human conditions. He concedes that technologies cannot solve every human problem even though they steer Malawi towards attaining the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Like Sehlako et al. (2023), Munthali, 2006 calls for public-private solid partnerships (PPPs) in the implementation of ICT4D within education contexts. He later suggests that the ICT4D policy should avoid ad-hoc deployment and use of ICTs in schools.

Chimpololo, 2010, on the other hand, contends that the advances in ICT infrastructure have compelled Malawi to join global trends by introducing e-learning. He also commends the emergence of private radio and television stations, which can now broadcast nationwide education programs. He further acknowledges the optic fiber cables for providing high-speed internet. He also identifies telecenters, internet cafes, cheap mobile phones and rural electrification projects, which have significantly improved access to internet and lighting in rural areas. These developments increased collaboration and interaction among ODeL students and teachers, unlike when print media mainly supported distance education. Chimpololo also observes that e-learning in Malawi still has critical challenges, such as inadequate funding, lack of libraries, unqualified staff, unreliable electricity and expensive internet, often excluding poor students from participating in e-learning. Chimpololo concludes that minimalist policies, inconsistent energy supply limitations, limited library access and poverty have significantly threatened ODeL in Malawi. While ODeL has been viewed as a cost-saving delivery mode for the poor (Chimpololo, 2010; Chibambo, 2023), it is not usually the case as ODeL comes with its opportune costs which students usually shoulder through tuition, examination, union and accommodation fees; internet costs and other mundane costs especially when they are invited for mere registration, and the next day they are told to go back home and so on (also see Chibambo, 2023).

South Africa first digitized her education through projects such as the Khanya, School Net, Intel Tech Education and ICT4RED (Sehlako et al., 2023). These projects, however, flopped due to policy flaws and technical issues. This later led to the White Paper on Education Policy, which gave birth to the OPI as a basic education pilot project to be extended to HEIs later (Sehlako et al., 2023; Kwet, 2017, 2019; DBE, 2003). OPI originated from the UK, Malaysia, Tanzania and the US as a problem-solving methodology in response to globalization. According to Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Republic of South Africa (DPME) (2014) and Kwet, 2017, DBE launched OPI in 2015, arguing that ICTs could provide limitless access to quality education, hence offsetting the inequalities planted by the Apartheid regime. Following this, White Paper Seven recommended fast-tracking 4IR into basic education through OPI. For Mabila, Herselman, and Van Biljon (2016, p. 1) and Sehlako et al. (2023),White Paper Seven recommended that OPI use print and digital resources since South Africa had high poverty levels, poor electricity, poor internet connection, poor information literacy, digital divide and expensive computers. These problems were also reported in Malawi, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Zambia as key barriers to successful e-learning (see Chibambo & Divala, 2022; Mvula & Kalumbila, 2022; Vurayi, 2021; Bichler, 2020).

Sehlako et al. (2023). Vurayi, 2023, Selwyn, 2007 and Higgins, 2006 have also flagged health issues due to small-sized screens, power relations, and culture where teachers and students have resisted the use of 4IR for educational purposes as challenges their pedagogies and cultural identities as well as their power and control. Resistance has also emerged because of difficulties in working with the new technologies emanating from technical, economic and psychological factors (see Sehlako et al., 2023; Simpson, 2023). Even then, South Africa has remained resolute, arguing that 4IR helps build necessary capabilities among the users, creates a global information society and prepares the youth for the future world of work (see National Planning Commission (NPC), 2011, 2020a, b; Mabila et al., 2016; Munthali, 2006). On the other hand, Sehlako et al. (2023) fault the lack of contextual studies on how 4IR in basic education could succeed without subjecting the children to epistemological injustices. South, 2017 cautions that all educational policies should emanate from rigorous research, reflective practices, and stakeholder engagement if the policies are equalizing and successful. Further studies have also revealed that rogue inclusion of 4IR can promulgate epistemological injustices in education, as was the case in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand (Sehlako et al., 2023; Chibambo & Divala, 2022; Simpson, 2015; Friesen, 2008; Selwyn, 2007; Feenberg, 1999, 2005).

Additionally, White Paper Seven further claimed that schools in South Africa should urgently embrace 4IR because the world is now globalized; hence, schools need to prepare students for future jobs and the technological world (DBE, 2003). This claim was re-echoed by the then Minister of Education, Professor Asmal, 1999, who argued:

From the above discussions, it is clear that common claims regarding 4IR-aided education include embracing modernity and fashion, increasing access to quality education, access to information, and improving school management and administration. These claims made me investigate how 4IR can promulgate epistemological and curriculum () justice in socioeconomically challenged countries such as Malawi. Thus, I sought to understand how demystifying such claims would help me reconstruct an epistemologically 4IR-aided higher education in Malawi and elsewhere.

According to Vurayi (2023, 2022), there has been resistance to adopting online learning in Zimbabwe’s secondary schools, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Vurayi established that e-learning was especially resisted by teachers, parents and learners alike due to poor communication channels, unpreparedness of the schools and users, and lack of necessary education and training. Likewise, lack of cohort socialization, additional costs, fear of the unknown, vested interests, ingrained habits, power relations, control and increased workload were also cited as resistance factors. He concluded that resistance, in this case, might have been a valuable tool for understanding that something was wrong. He then recommended that Zimbabwe provide adequate information, training and communication to the users about 4IR-aided education so that they can accept it as a beneficial tool for improving education quality without disrupting pedagogy. As observed by Selwyn, 2007, Sehlako et al. (2023) and Chimpololo, 2010, e-learning may bring with it additional costs on the users, increase workloads through typing and converting notes into slides, change traditional ways of teaching, need for new skills and knowledge; loss of control over students, content and pedagogy, and compromised income levels through reduced contact hours if the purpose is to serve on costs. He finally recommends enhanced participation, negotiation, education, communication and positive coercion skills (soft power) among all the stakeholders if technologies can be accepted and adopted successfully.

In the US, 4IR has been adopted in education to enhance administrative functions by tracking student behavior and performance using analytics and metrics (see Frezzo, 2017; Scalzo, 2017; Sehlako et al., 2023; South, 2017). Guillen-Gamez and Mayorga-Fernandez , 2020 have also claimed that rapid ICT changes can change political, cultural, socioeconomic and educational landscapes while profiling each user differently (see Agrawal & Mittal, 2018; Chan et al., 2017; Martin, Diaz, Sancristobal, Gil, Castro, & Peire, 2011). Furthermore, Guillen-Gamez and Mayorga-Fernandez , 2020 observe that the emergence of 4IR has accelerated e-learning in traditional face-to-face and ODeL contexts, which was common during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, Nations University (NSU) of New Orleans has offered accredited online degrees to poor students worldwide and prisoners (see Nations University, 2023). NSU reports that many prisoners have graduated with degrees in Theology and Religious Studies at a small fee. Since prisoners have, by law, limited access to the internet, NSU has served through postal mail and the support offered by chaplains, directors, friends and families. It also requires that prisons allow students to study, find a certified proctor (in/ non-inmate) who is willing to monitor and administer exams, inmates have high school diplomas or GED certification; inmates can access bulk mail, family members or anyone has an email to link inmates and NSU, inmates have finances and computers for guying books and typing examinations. For Besançon et al. (2020), 4IR has hugely enhanced and simplified information sharing, especially under the open educational resources (OERs) and Creative Commons Licensing. Thus, unlike traditional media, academics and students can readapt, manipulate and revise educational content using malleable technologies.

Moreover, the UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) developed OER policies. OSS Watch regulated universities’ creation, manipulation, distribution and use of online OERs in the UK, and the project managed to increase access to democratized knowledge. Equally, Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act in 2010, worth $2 billion, to finance the TACT program, the largest online OER initiative in the world. TAACCCT has since then collaborated with employers and HEIs to create technical instrumentalist curricula for Tevet industries in the US (see Open Source Organisation, 2013). This demonstrates that, as the world democracies grow, so should knowledge democratization through the provision of OERs, which seeks to minimize the effects of education massification and commodification of knowledge (Leibowitz, 2017).

Social justice, distributive justice and curriculum justice

In order to effectively analyze epistemological injustices, notions of social justice, distributive justice and curriculum ought to be articulated. Different accounts consider social justice as a multilayered concept, which is ideologically value-laden and has conflicting meanings, making it challenging to attain (Rawls, 1985; Pearce & Cumming-Potvim, 2017). Rawls understood social justice as entailing ways to distribute benefits and burdens fairly. However, such distribution will depend on the principles of justice, such as fairness and the difference principle. For Calderwood, 2003, social justice merely seeks to undo socially created and sustained differences, such as material conditions, to eliminate the perpetuation of privileging others. Rawls’s views resonate with Karl Marx, who viewed class distinction as being based on materialism rather than gender, sex and race, which are usually artificial differentiations. Conversely, Pearce and Cumming-Potvim , 2017 view social justice as a process that seeks to make systems just by removing barriers that can prevent individuals or groups from accessing fundamental human rights in society, including education. For Lucas, Walker, Eames, Fay and Poustie (see Lucas, Walker, Eames, Fay, & Poustie, 2004), social justice provides individuals or groups with fair treatment and an impartial share of socioeconomic and environmental benefits. This way, social justice aims to promote equal distribution of advantages and disadvantages within society regardless of any factors. Precisely, social justice is centrally concerned with equity, access, participation and protection for society without any bias or prejudices.

Conversely, Chipkin and Meny-Gibert , 2013 define distributive justice as mainly about the distribution and allocation of goods that society values. Similarly, Simm, 2014 viewed distributive justice as explaining how material goods, but not economic resources, are distributed amongst the members of that society. Distributive justice means fair distribution of material goods and services such as health, security and education. Curriculum justice nonetheless concerns the fair distribution of social goods in education (see Pearce & Cumming-Potvim, 2017). For Connell (2011, 1992), curriculum justice is only achievable if its activities are organized around the experiences, culture, voice and needs of the disadvantaged members of society. This implies that curriculum justice is achievable only if the school and society decide to implement programs for their benefit. Since curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a way that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice for the common good of all society (Stenhouse, 2006), then curriculum justice theorem provides us with the best tool for scanning the role of 4IR in promulgating epistemological (in) justice in HEIs. Stenhouse believed that collective cultures may affect the nature of educational experiences in schools. This means a classroom with a strong culture would learn democratic values through instruction rather than enactment. This assumption nonetheless defies claims that curriculum is a standard-based sequence of planned experiences where students practice and achieve proficiency in content and applied learning skills (Matiki, Chibambo, & Divala, 2023) or that curriculum is the central guide for educators as to what is essential for teaching and learning so that every student accesses structured academic experiences (Talla, 2012). In the main, curriculum injustices presuppose that, within 4IR-aided education, certain practices might destabilize justice by limiting students’ access to equitable participation, performance and completion due to symbolic violence (see Bourdieu, 1984; Reay, 2005).

TAM is an information systems theory that models how users of any technology accept or reject that technology. According to Davis, 1989, TAM constitutes behavioral intention as a factor that makes people use any technology. Such behavioral intention is influenced by attitude regarding the general impression of that technology. When users are presented with new technologies, several factors may influence their decision about how and when they will use the technology. For example, perceived usefulness is the degree to which a person believes using a particular system would enhance their job performance. Secondly, perceived ease of use is the degree to which a person believes using a system would be easy. The barrier iseliminated if the technology is accessible, but users will reject it if it is complicated or tedious. Other external variables include socioeconomic, cultural and symbolic (prestige) capital, which determine users’ attitudes. When external factors are positive, users may have a positive attitude and use that technology easily. While TAM has mainly been used in empirical studies, this conceptual analysis still helps me illuminate how 4IR efforts have failed to succeed in Africa’s education contexts and how best HEIs can make provisions for increasing access, participation, and epistemologically justice 4IR-aided education.

Technological researchers have consistently agreed that the exponential growth of ICTs demands that students develop digital competencies to help them manage the information society and knowledge economy (Zozie, 2020; Rokenes & Krumsvik, 2016; DBE, 2003). This implies that teachers and students should develop skills, attitudes, values and knowledge of technologies for different contexts if they are to function and survive within educational systems and at work (see Valtonen et al., 2019). Some scholars have likewise argued that ICTs increase access, participation, engagement, interaction, performance, quality and learner confidence since shy learners usually communicate more confidently in private than in public arenas (see Zozie, 2020; Frezzo, 2017; USOET, 2017; Chibambo & Divala, 2019). Conversely, Sehlako et al. (2023) and Scalzo, 2017 reiterated that 4IR-aided education provides individualized educational experiences while enhancing a sense of democracy. They posit that 4IR improves students’ attention and discipline more than f2f educational contexts. Lee et al. (2018) likewise asserted that 4IR enhances students’ performance through the provision of timely feedback while also enhancing pedagogical practices. If these claims are indeed true, then we should not have had high levels of resistance to 4IER in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Korea and Australia (Simpson, 2015; McNally & Rutland, 2009), after all, perceived usefulness (Davis, 1989) would have been fulfilled on this basis. Even then, these claims ignore the fact that social media platforms have often promulgated gender-based violence, sexual harassment, cyberbullying, phishing, racism, blackmailing and confrontations mostly against women, semi-literates and the poor (see Chibambo & Divala, 2019; Friesen, 2008). This is so because violators are usually hiding behind the screen and use pseudonyms and multiple accounts for evil purposes. For example, my colleagues and I experienced much indiscipline in South Africa from freshmen during the COVID-19 online classes more than during f2f sessions and among continuing students. Surprisingly, when I taught the same group in the third year using f2f sessions, it was the most responsible group, making it difficult to identify them as deviants. This implied that students logged into the university system using nicknames, making them feel secure to harass us well, knowing that they were new and shielded by virtual presence. But as Davis presupposes, any innovation that brings discomfort to users may most likely be rejected. In this case, cyberbullying and violence against academics and or peers often sat in opposition to the maxim of perceived ease of use (Davis, 1989) and, importantly, the maxim of justice as fairness (Rawls, 1985) and/or Connell (2011, 1992) curriculum justice.

Despite these shortfalls, claims about the flawless abilities of 4IR have continued to drive HEIs into wholesale adoption of technologies, sometimes without any contextual analyses (see Makoe, 2018; Makoe & Gatsha, 2020; Kwet, 2019; Munthali, 2006). As Simpson, 2015 argues, any education policies that emanate from inadequate research and thoughtlessness may fail to serve the interests of that education system and society. Likewise, Kwet, 2017 contends that although South Africa had done some contextual analyses for OPI, it still needs to implement this project despite several warnings against its obsoleteness and idealistic nature of the policy (see Sehlako et al., 2023). For Meyer and Gent , 2016, OPI goofed by ignoring NGOs, researchers, academics and other key stakeholders who would not only help make informed decisions but could also provide essential resources for minimizing the digital divide. This implies that South Africa had equally failed to account for the weaknesses of earlier digitization projects, which failed due to policy flaws (see Pholotho & Mtsweni, 2016). While South Africa started with basic education, it still holds together Malawi’s case since HEIs have barely adopted ODeL without any conceptual analyses or ODeL policies (see Makoe & Gatsha, 2020; Makoe, 2018; Chibambo, 2023; SADC & UNESCO ROSA Joint Project, 2020). The latter becomes critical since Malawi’s HEIs are just wretched entities surviving on rationed freebies from well-wishers.

Moreover, although the Commonwealth of Learning (COL) has since 2022 funded national and institutional ODeL policies, they still remain in draft forms. Accordingly, this study sought to investigate how 4IR can promulgate curriculum (in) justices within Malawi’s HEIs contexts. The questions were: Can 4IR-aided education promulgate curriculum (in) justice within socioeconomically fragmented contexts? How can 4IR help achieve and sustain quality and inclusive higher education?

E-learning in Europe, America and Oceania

While the literature above has demonstrated various claims regarding the unmatched abilities of 4IR in education, more needs to be said about the mythological nature of the claims. For example, e-learning has experienced several issues in Europe and Oceania that forced some universities to abandon 4IR strategies. Specifically, Simpson, 2015 established that in the UK, Germany, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, e-learning encountered both pleasant and unpleasant experiences. Simpson mainly sought to examine e-learning as universities adopted 4IR without conceptual analyses. He established that although e-learning appeared cheaper, it may become costly and threaten epistemological access and justice. He questions claims of interaction and performance and identifies these as cheap myths (Zozie, 2020; Scalzo, 2017; Frezzo, 2022). Simpson further reports that the Open University UK (OUK) introduced e-learning, only to be trapped in bad debts and decreased graduation rates from 40% to 13% (Simpson, 2015). It also incurred serious debts from investing in ICT compared to when print and f2f were used. Since the UK could not reach 20% of its population with domestic Internet, OUK could only equally reach some learners. Even though some of these issues may come from other sources, Simpson was convinced that wholesale e-learning had mainly contributed to limited access to education, financial quagmires and high attrition rates. Likewise, at the Dublin City University Connect (DCUC), students were offered f2f tutorials and/or a mixture of options. Most students opted for a mixture of both online and f2f instruction. This forced the university to use blended learning to increase cohort socialization and interactions among students and instructors, as suggested by the students (Simpson, 2015). These findings support Chimpololo, 2010, who established that ODeL has prospects only if it deploys blended approaches. Likewise, Fern-Universit€ at in Germany upheld f2f alongside 4IR to maximize interaction since this was lacking within 4IR contexts (see Simpson, 2015; Chibambo, 2023). These findings demonstrate that developed countries struggle to implement wholesale online programs despite having massive ICT infrastructure. For Sehlako et al. (2023), the European experiences should serve as a wake-up call for Africa, where well over 92% of the population stays in rural areas. Such realities should also help policymakers rethink how best to serve disadvantaged schools from further curriculum injustices.

E-learning in Asia and curriculum injustices

Simpson (2015, p. 3) established that the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) and the Open University of China (OUC) had yet to fully digitize their programs despite having gigantic ODeL universities. Although these countries had excellent technologies, they deliberately avoided romanticizing e-learning for good reasons. Similarly, Korean National Open University (KNOU) had partially introduced 4IR despite having household internet access levels of 97%, and broadband speed of 82 Mbps, 17% and 2% more than the UK. KNOU mandated students to undertake mandatory f2f modules each semester to overcome the limitations of poor interaction and isolationism, and these were outlined in the 2014 students’handbook. Thus, to ensure participation, the modules were examinable (Simpson, 2015). These f2f classes were also made mandatory after student surveys, which showed that most students preferred f2f sessions to online ones mainly due to incomprehension of instruction when in isolation. Sehlako et al. (2023) also found that about 50% of the students felt that the current f2f sessions were enough; 40% wanted more than what was offered due to cohort socialization purposes. These realities, therefore, invalidate the claims that modern youths are Digital natives or Google generations or that e-learning improves interaction and socialization (see Foss, Oftedal, & Løkken, 2013; Scalzo, 2022; Zozie, 2020).

As Sehlako et al. (2023) and Chibambo (2023b) argued, it is still being determined if all students find different online platforms easy and useful (Davis, 1989). This way, students’access, participation and success within online contexts may be disfranchising based on symbolic capital and socioeconomic backgrounds, raising serious questions about the Google generation myth (see Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008; Foss et al., 2013; Garcia, Escofet, & Gros, 2013, 2012). Moreover, a study by the UK Joint Information System Committee (UKJISC) (see Rowlands et al., 2008; Besançon et al., 2020) established that, while some youths demonstrate easiness with basic search engines, most of them lack critical skills for evaluating online content. It also established that the youths, just like professors, generally needed more patience when searching for online data and that such qualities could have been better for quality academic success. Equally, McNally and Rutland , 2009 established that 4IR increased the digital divide and socio-cultural inequalities among the Aboriginals, demonstrating that e-learning challenges transcended age, sex, culture, attitudes, tastes and dispositions (see Bourdieu, 1984; Bourdieu & Jean-Claude, 1979). In a nutshell, these findings demonstrate that e-learning has merits and demerits regarding epistemological access and justice. The cases from Europe, America, Oceania and Asia have highlighted often forgone issues in e-learning and how such rogue policies can promulgate curriculum (in) justices within HEIs contexts. The theoretical framework will help me reimagine 4IR-aided education informed by just educational policies within the current study contexts.

According to USoET, 2017, using 4IR in education demands thoughtfulness, reflective practices and research to avoid disadvantaging people experiencing poverty. Although many HEIs have adopted e-learning as a cost-saving measure, indiscriminate adoption of 4IR can accelerate the digital divide among rural-poor students whose access to electricity, internet and e-devices is very limited (see Munthali, 2006; Chimpololo, 2010; Vurayi, 2023). Similarly, Chibambo (2023a), Chibambo and Divala , 2022 and Bichler, 2020 report that over 92% of Malawians live in rural-poor areas where access to electricity and the internet is still scarce, hence jeopardizing online efforts. In South Africa and Zimbabwe (see Sehlako et al., 2023; Chibambo & Divala, 2022; Vurayi, 2023, 2022, 2021), 4IR initiatives had sustained curriculum injustices through the digital divide during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was further reported that e-learning helped increase stress and anxiety among all users due to overworking and loneliness. For example, academics failed to differentiate between person-hours and dead hours as students required their support even during midnight or lunches. The studies, however, cautioned HEIs to refrain from rushing into wholesale adoption of online initiatives unless thought-provoking research is completed. They caution HEIs against backtracking from online initiatives since that could also kill the morale gained during the COVID-19 initiatives. Beyond this, educators were urged to gradually embrace technologies while recognizing that identity formation and change generally require enough nudging and assimilation efforts, much like elephants nudge their claves (Miller, 2022; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).

Similarly, in Zambia and Zimbabwe (see Mvula & Kalumbila, 2022; Mvula), schools that adopted e-learning during the COVID-19 had seen their efforts flop due to unreliable electricity, poor internet, expensive data, poor information literacy, poor devices, power-relations, fear of the unknown and loss of income. These contributed to resistance, non-participation and inequalities among the user groups. Matimaire, 2020 also identified limited support systems and institutional unpreparedness, increasing users’ digital divide. He observed that administrators who supported the users by providing them with capacity building (CPDs) on ICTs had managed to achieve positive outcomes. He concluded that

e-learning can become successful when accompanied by adequate infrastructural, social, technical and moral support systems. In Kenya and Uganda, problems such as erratic electricity, expensive internet connectivity and lack of information literacy were also blamed for promoting the digital divide in education (Ayere, Odera, & Agak, 2010).

These results indicate that e-learning in Africa has been marred by many challenges that eventually create and sustain curriculum injustices. These results expose the double-edged nature of 4IR and how its supporters have cunningly hidden truths regarding its implications on curriculum justice. Moreover, neoliberal inventions such as educational technologies have often tended to create a digital divide, addiction, cyber-bullying, moral depravations and human exploitation, which are carefully concealed by its disciples (see Sehlako et al., 2023; Selwyn, 2007; Friesen, 2008; Higgins, 2006). From a social justice perspective, these issues contradict natural laws of justice as fairness from a distributive perspective to curriculum justice. Moreover, erratic electricity, expensive internet data, increased workloads and isolationism might have equally contributed to poor adoption of ICTs in the study areas, reaffirming the maxims of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, which also determine the attitude of whether users should accept technologies or not (Davis, 1989).

This study has meticulously examined the role of 4IR in promulgating epistemological injustice within HEIs context in the SADC region. Drawing from global experiences, I was aided in making different case scenarios to make a case for Malawi’s 4IR-aided education context. It also analyzed claims related to the benefits of 4IR and its challenges and established that most of the claims are polished myths and fallacies of sunk costs and steep slope. Using 4IR in education has serious challenges, such as power relations, cyberbullying, technological defects, the digital divide, excessive workloads and costs, and psychological issues. These challenges have dented user perceptions of 4IR in education and augmented resistance among user groups. Many scholars also made the observations discussed in this study, including Vurayi (2023, 2022), Sehlako et al. (2023), Friesen, 2008, Selwyn, 2007 and others. From a social justice perspective, the study showed that 4IR has a huge potential to violate the Rawlsian principles of justice as fairness and Connell’s (1992) curriculum justice. I have recommended that 4IR in education only be implemented after rigorous research and reflective practices. I urge HEIs to train all user groups regularly to orient them on emerging technologies. Importantly, wholesale adoption of 4IR ought to be discouraged unless they are inclusive, affordable, accessible and user-friendly within depraved contexts or go for blended learning. These proposals do not, in any way, suggest that HEIs should relent from adopting ICTs in education, but rather embrace it betrothing exclusion of the marginalized users. Only then will we be able to epistemologically achieve just 4IR-aided education, which respects the maxims of both TAM and Justice as Fairness theoretical propositions.