Original Research

Curriculum transformation in a South African open distance e-learning university: A firsthand account of stakeholder collaboration, challenges and pathways forward

Florah M. Teane

Received: 02 Sept. 2025; Accepted: 12 Dec. 2025; Published: 24 Mar. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

A collaborative approach to curriculum transformation (CT) ensures that higher education programmes remain inclusive, future-ready and responsive to societal needs. Guided by Stakeholder Theory and Clark’s Triangle of Coordination, this study examined how a multistakeholder approach shapes CT in a South African Open Distance e-Learning (ODeL) university. The study addressed the question: how does collaborative stakeholder engagement influence CT in an ODeL context? While transformation efforts aim to integrate Afrikan epistemologies, pedagogical renewal, online teaching and innovative assessment, challenges persist. Using a qualitative critical ethnographic case study, the research drew on participant observation, field notes, document analysis and interviews with 15 purposefully selected participants – one CT head, five champions, six lecturers and three students. Findings show that Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), institutional management, champions, lecturers and students each played distinct roles in advancing transformation principles such as Afrikan epistemologies, pedagogical renewal, online teaching and innovative assessment. While stakeholder involvement strengthened collaboration, significant barriers emerged, including epistemological resistance, uneven digital competence, increased workload, misaligned expectations and declining momentum after DHET funding ended. Addressing these challenges is crucial for effective CT.

Contribution: The study concludes that sustainable curriculum transformation in ODeL settings requires continuous dialogue, stronger institutional support, internal funding mechanisms and dedicated capacity-building for champions and lecturers. These conditions are essential for embedding Afrikan epistemologies and promoting meaningful, long-term pedagogical renewal.

Keywords: Afrikan epistemologies; curriculum transformation; implementational challenges; pedagogical renewal; stakeholder collaboration.

Introduction

Curriculum transformation (CT) has become a central imperative in South African higher education, particularly in the aftermath of student-led movements demanding relevance, inclusivity and the decolonisation of knowledge (Ajani & Govender 2024; Heleta 2016; Verhoef & Du Preez 2020).

For Open Distance e-Learning (ODeL) universities, this imperative is even more complex because transformation must occur within digitally mediated, geographically dispersed and multi-stakeholder systems (Ajani & Govender 2024; Brunetti et al. 2020; Hicks 2018).

Literature has indicated that curriculum co-creation creates a more inclusive higher education (Hughes et al. 2019) where all stakeholders’ needs are catered for. Meeting such individual needs calls for the infusion of change drivers such as new teaching and learning modalities, for example, the use of technologies to create flexible delivery and imparting employability skills to graduates (Roberts 2015). Yet Kandiko Howson and Kingsbury’s (2023) study revealed that moving away from the traditional high-stakes exam-based assessment culture towards a digital engagement that caters for diversity and inclusion in institutions of higher learning is a slow process. In the same breath, according to Brunetti et al. (2020), digital transformation requires multi-stakeholder approach so that every stakeholder may own the change.

Although national and institutional policy frameworks emphasise the importance of broad-based participation in curriculum reform, there remains limited empirical insight into how such processes unfold in practice – especially from the perspective of those tasked with implementing transformation on the ground (CHE 2013; Jongbloed, Enders & Salerno 2008; Kandiko Howson & Kingsbury 2023).

This article addresses this gap by examining a large-scale, multi-stakeholder CT initiative at a South African ODeL university. The knowledge problem underpinning this study is twofold: firstly, little is known about how diverse stakeholders – Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), institutional management, CT champions, lecturers, and students – collaborate, negotiate and sometimes contest the transformation agenda; secondly, existing accounts seldom capture the tensions, resistance, workload pressures, epistemic struggles and digital demands encountered during implementation. As a result, the practical realities of embedding principles such as Afrikan epistemologies, pedagogical renewal, innovative assessment and online teaching remain under-theorised within the ODeL sector.

Drawing on a qualitative critical ethnographic case study, this article provides a firsthand account of the CT process, offering an insider perspective on both the collaborative successes and the systemic barriers that shaped the initiative. The argument advanced here is that while multi-stakeholder engagement strengthens CT, its effectiveness is constrained by misaligned expectations, uneven digital competence, inconsistent institutional support and declining momentum following the end of DHET funding. By foregrounding these dynamics, the article highlights the need for sustainable funding, ongoing capacity-building and relational practices that sustain transformation beyond policy directives or short-term projects.

Emanating from the introduction presented, the study sought to answer the research question:

How does a collaborative, multistakeholder approach influence CT efforts in a South African ODeL university?

The following sub-questions were formulated:

• In what ways do different stakeholders – including CT heads, champions, lecturers and students – contribute to and influence CT processes?
• Which challenges and barriers emerge for stakeholders in implementing curriculum changes, particularly regarding the integration of African epistemologies, pedagogical renewal and innovative assessment practices?
• Which strategies, mechanisms and support structures facilitate effective collaboration and sustainable CT in an ODeL environment?

The rest of this article proceeds as follows. Firstly, a theoretical framework and literature provide a focus for the study. Secondly, the sampling and data collection methods are outlined. Thirdly, the findings and a discussion of stakeholder collaboration and the challenges encountered in pursuing the CT agenda. The article concludes with a summary of this study and some recommendations.

Theoretical framework

This study examines stakeholder collaboration and challenges during institutional CT. It is underpinned by stakeholder theory, as conceptualised by Leisyte and Westerheijden (2014). While traditionally a theory of organisational management and business ethics, stakeholder theory has increasingly been applied to higher education governance, particularly in the context of curriculum reform and quality assurance (Leisyte & Westerheijden 2014). This makes it particularly useful for analysing how multiple actors influence, negotiate and co-construct curriculum processes.

Leisyte and Westerheijden’s (2014) work extends Clark’s (1983) Triangle of Coordination, which theorises the interaction among three forces – the state (government control), the market (economic and labour demands) and the academic oligarchy (faculty governance) – in shaping higher education systems. They argue that effective CT cannot be understood solely through institutional or academic lenses; rather, it requires acknowledging the multiplicity of stakeholders, including students, faculty, industry representatives, government bodies, accreditation agencies and the broader community. These actors interact dynamically, negotiating interests, shaping decision-making and ensuring that curricula remain relevant and responsive to societal and labour market needs.

Within this framework, CT is conceptualised as a participatory, multi-actor process. Stakeholders’ engagement is not merely procedural but central to achieving quality and sustainable change (Dill 2007; Gumport 2000). Collaboration among diverse actors fosters curriculum relevance, aligns educational outcomes with societal and economic demands (Carbonell et al. 2014; Jongbloed et al. 2008) and supports institutional innovation (Kezar 2005).

By applying Leisyte and Westerheijden’s stakeholder perspective, this study foregrounds three key principles that guide the analysis and discussion of empirical data:

• Multi-actor governance: Curriculum decisions are shaped by the interactions and negotiations of diverse stakeholders, rather than by faculty or administration alone.
• Dynamic negotiation of interests: Stakeholders’ competing priorities and expectations are continuously negotiated to ensure the curriculum meets both institutional and societal goals.
• Stakeholder-driven quality assurance: Continuous engagement ensures that curriculum design and implementation are responsive, inclusive and adaptable.

This theoretical lens not only frames the research problem but also provides a practical guide for data treatment. Specifically, it allows the study to examine how stakeholders collaborate, negotiate and confront challenges during CT and to interpret these processes in terms of governance dynamics, participatory engagement and quality outcomes.

Literature review

Stakeholder contributions to curriculum transformation

Curriculum transformation in ODeL institutions is increasingly recognised as a multidimensional process involving multiple stakeholders. Matlala (2023) argues that curriculum design in ODeL environments requires more than content delivery; it necessitates collaborative engagement among educators, administrators and students to ensure active learning and reflective pedagogies.

Stakeholder engagement is crucial to embrace different expectations and experiences of various stakeholder groups to enhance an effective and comprehensive quality assurance system (Beerkens & Udam 2017:1). The word stakeholder is defined in many ways by different authors. Gaweł et al. (2024) define stakeholder as a diverse array of participants, all collaborating to ensure the curriculum meets contemporary educational and professional demands (p. 2135). The South African council of higher education (CHE) on the other hand defines stakeholders as individuals and groups who have a vested interest in the content, structure, implementation and outcomes of curricula – ranging from academic staff and students to employers, professional bodies and policymakers (CHE 2013:31). The CHE definition aligns with that of Jongbloed et al. (2008:305) who indicated that stakeholders are those who have a legitimate interest in the activities and performance of universities – these may be internal (students, staff, faculty) or external (employers, government, funding bodies, society). This study embraces all definitions as it focuses on collaborations between different stakeholders who have vested interests in the development of curricula in institutions of higher, namely DHET, institutional management, lecturers and students.

Mbati and Mphahlele (2024) emphasise student-centred and collaborative supervision practices, highlighting the importance of stakeholder involvement in shaping both the structure and delivery of curriculum. Collectively, these studies underscore that stakeholders – ranging from CT heads and champions to lecturers and students – play a critical role in guiding curriculum development, fostering innovation and ensuring alignment with institutional mandates and learner needs.

Participatory collaboration is further seconded by Samson (2019:127), it generates opportunities for creativity and innovation in curriculum planning, building partnerships between students, teachers, institutions and communities. When partnerships are encouraged, they would always provide valuable input that will result in improved quality assurance of the curriculum framework (Iradel 2018).

One important advantage of collaboration is that stakeholders will have a common understanding of what the system should offer, so as to increase support and legitimacy to the system (Beerkens & Udam 2017). This common understanding will lead to the development and incorporation of quality CT principles (Kandiko Howson & Kingsbury 2023). For example, the decolonisation principle will best suit African countries that were once a colony or under the political and economic control of some coloniser to guide CT (Etieyibo 2019). The reason is that such countries neglected their own African cultures and indigenous knowledge systems (Kamwendo 2016), and it would be a best practice to produce knowledge that defines a nation’s identity (Falola 2022: xvi).

Challenges and barriers in implementing curriculum transformation

Curriculum transformation in higher education continues to face significant pressures in the 21st century, particularly within contexts marked by sociopolitical change and widening expectations (Howard 2018; Verhoef & Du Preez 2020). In South Africa, many of these challenges stem from persistent conceptual ambiguities surrounding the national transformation agenda articulated during the 2008, 2010 and 2015 Higher Education Summits. While the 2010 Summit emphasised the need for curricula that meaningfully reflect students’ lived experiences and expectations (RSA 2008), the absence of a clear national framework has resulted in institutions interpreting transformation in inconsistent and sometimes superficial ways. The 2015 Summit further recognised that deep curriculum renewal requires sustained investment, institutional capacity and ongoing dialogue (RSA 2015). Reformers, however, continue to grapple with funding constraints, resistance to change and divergent views on what transformation should entail. As Torres (2016) argues, such conceptual ambiguity and limited pedagogical guidance create gaps that compromise the effectiveness of transformation processes, a concern echoed by Mohamed (2023), who notes that insufficient attention to individual and institutional needs can hinder both the management and acceptance of new curricular directions.

A further layer of complexity relates to the shift from traditional, standardised curriculum models towards technology-mediated approaches (Law 2022). The integration of digital tools demands that educators embrace new pedagogical strategies and incorporate technological innovations intended to enhance student engagement (Daniela, Strods & Kalniņa 2019). Despite these challenges, developments in information and communication technologies have expanded opportunities for more flexible and personalised learning (Hicks 2018). This aligns with pedagogical renewal efforts in which technology supports differentiated learning pathways (Romero-García et al. 2024) and enables a shift from summative ‘tests of learning’ to formative, developmental ‘assessments for learning’ (Petersen 2016). Yet, educator readiness is uneven: some academics resist or feel overwhelmed by digital transformation (Antonietti, Cattaneo & Amenduni 2022). Their study demonstrates that teachers’ willingness to adopt digital tools is strongly shaped by their perceived competence and the value they attribute to technology. As Law (2022) notes, navigating such shifts requires alternative strategies and collaborative engagement among stakeholders. One such approach involves adopting Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which calls for multiple learning modalities and varied assessment options to meet diverse student needs (Kusumaningsih 2021). However, implementing UDL is demanding and requires institutional support, targeted training and sustained professional development.

Transforming curricula in ODeL contexts presents additional challenges as institutions must integrate pedagogical innovation while responding to decolonial imperatives. Globally, higher education increasingly incorporates virtual laboratories, gamification, flipped learning and AI-supported teaching, all of which require stakeholders to adapt to rapidly evolving educational technologies (Kerimbayev et al. 2023; Li, Wong & Chan 2023). Safarifard et al. (2024) further highlight that effective e-learning pedagogy should integrate constructivist and sociocultural approaches – an expectation that becomes difficult to meet without adequate institutional and professional support. Within South Africa, the transformation agenda is further shaped by historical and socio-political legacies. Govender and Naidoo (2023) argue for epistemic shifts capable of dismantling entrenched colonial knowledge systems, while the Council on Higher Education (2025) notes ongoing tensions between maintaining global competitiveness and ensuring local relevance. These insights illustrate that stakeholders face significant barriers in aligning technological innovation, pedagogical renewal and decolonial objectives, making the transformation process particularly complex and contested within ODeL environments.

Strategies and support structures for effective collaboration

Ensuring sustainable CT in ODeL institutions requires deliberate strategies and support structures that foster collaboration among diverse stakeholders. Research suggests that integrating transformative learning theories, participatory pedagogies and technological tools can promote engagement, inclusivity and effective co-construction of curricula (Kerimbayev et al. 2023; Matlala 2023). Mbati and Mphahlele (2024) highlight collaborative supervision and student-centred approaches as key mechanisms to support stakeholder engagement. Additionally, alignment with institutional policies, professional development programs for lecturers and platforms for continuous dialogue among CT heads, champions and students are essential to overcoming barriers and sustaining curricular change. Such strategies ensure that CT is not only technologically innovative but also culturally responsive, inclusive and pedagogically sound.

Research methods and design

Approach and design

The study was qualitative in nature and adopted an interpretivist paradigm. Key to qualitative research is social context and issues concerning a transcendent perspective towards social change (Neuman 1997). This angle fits in well with my transformation and decoloniality focus.

To address the complexity of CT within a single ODeL institution, this study adopted a qualitative case study design situated within an interpretivist paradigm. The case study served as the overarching design because the investigation focused on a bounded system – one university, its CT structures and the stakeholders involved (Merriam 2009). Within this design, I incorporated ethnographic methods, including immersion, participant observation and detailed field notes, to generate rich, contextualised insights into stakeholder practices and meaning making. The study is further informed by a critical orientation, drawing on decoloniality to foreground issues of power, voice and institutional culture that shape the transformation process. Accordingly, the design is best understood as an ethnographic case study, where ethnographic tools enrich the depth of analysis while the case study provides the structural boundary for the inquiry. This clarification resolves potential confusion between ethnography and case study by demonstrating how each contributes to the methodological coherence of the study.

Population

The population for this study consists of 150 champions who attended the CT online course during the years 2020–2023. From these champions, seven of them were appointed as lead champions managing seven out of the 11 colleges in the institution. Each of the colleges were sub-divided into departments; there were a total of 70 departments. For example, the college of human sciences consists of 20 departments, which means the college’s lead champion needs to monitor all 20 departments. Curriculum transformation Committees were developed in all departments, but some of the committee members did not attend the online course – it was the responsibility of the college lead champion to empower them with knowledge and skills on CT because every department was expected to conduct mini workshops on CT principles.

Sampling method

Using the purposive sampling method, 15 participants were selected, namely one CT head, five champions, six lecturers and three students. The demographics of the sample were as follows: only staff members who attended the online CT course were sampled. Out of the 15 participants eight were females and seven were males. Each of the participants has conducted at least one workshop at the departmental and/or college level. Each of the participants formed part of the departmental and or college committee.

Data collection

As a participant observer, I fulfilled two roles, namely being ‘simultaneously a member of the group I am studying and a researcher doing the study’ (Babbie et al. 2006:293). In my study, I draw on talk (the transformation conversations), on textual material (the reports of these conversations) and on my participant observation. My primary data collection was through written field notes; I did not do recordings as I thought that staff might feel uncomfortable with this method. To apply triangulation, I also engaged in one-on-one individual interviews with 15 individuals (one CT lead, five lead champions, six lecturers from different colleges and three students). One focus group was held with five lead champions from the different colleges. I developed a letter-and-number coding system to distinguish between the conversation reports useful. For the curriculum transformation, Lead Champion I used CT lead; for college champions’ conversations, I used CT Champion 1–5; for lecturers, I used Lecturer 1–6 and finally, students were labelled Student 1–3. Some of the individual interviews were held face to face, and some were virtual via teams. Both interviews and focus group discussion lasted between 45 min and 55 min.

Interview guide

The researcher developed an interview guide with the following questions:

How were you introduced to the curriculum transformation initiative at the university?

Can you explain your role as a curriculum transformation champion?

What forms of support (training, resources, dialogue spaces) did you get to make your role more effective?

How have you worked to integrate Afrikan epistemologies, pedagogical renewal, online teaching and innovative assessment into your curriculum, that is, into the course content and structure?

How have you engaged with other stakeholders in the transformation process?

What successes have you experienced in promoting curriculum change?

What resistance or challenges have you encountered from other stakeholders, and how did you mitigate them?

In your view, what are the main causes of stakeholder misunderstandings or conflicts during the process?

How has institutional support (or lack thereof) influenced your work as a stakeholder?

What advice would you give to institutions that wish to embark on the transformation agenda?

Data analysis

Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s (2021) six-phase model. This involved transcription, repeated reading, coding, categorising and developing themes. Significant information was identified (Denzin & Lincoln 2013), and descriptive codes were initially assigned to meaningful units of text. These first-level codes were then refined and clustered into broader categories during second-level coding. Patterns across categories were examined to develop themes and sub-themes, guided by constant comparison techniques (Merriam & Tisdell 2016; Nowell et al. 2017).

The thematic analysis process paid attention to both semantic meanings and deeper, latent insights related to institutional culture, power and transformation. As a participant observer and CT champion, my insider role inevitably shaped how I understood stakeholder interactions and institutional practices. To maintain reflexivity and minimise bias, I kept a reflexive journal documenting assumptions, emotional responses and evolving interpretations throughout the research process. Emerging themes were cross-checked against interview excerpts, field notes and CT reports to ensure that they reflected collective experiences rather than my own positionality. This reflexive, systematic approach enhanced the credibility and trustworthiness of the analysis.

The following three themes emerged, namely

The roles and contributions of different stakeholders in the CT process, challenges and barriers encountered by stakeholders during CT and strategies and support structures needed to overcome these challenges and promote sustainable curriculum change in an ODeL context.

Ethical considerations

An application for full ethical approval was made to the University of South Africa, College of Education Ethics Review Committee and ethics consent was received on 13 March 2024. The ethics approval number is 2024/03/13/90268571/12/AM. The researcher was a participant observer, she listened and observed all activities. Additional information was sourced from other champions.

Results

The findings reported here are divided into two. Firstly, as a participant observer, I provide data on what I observed using the observation checklist. Secondly, I provide verbatim quotes derived from the interviews and the focus group discussions.

Findings: Observation insights on curriculum transformation

The findings from observations are summarised in Table 1:

Roles and contributions of stakeholders

Curriculum transformation Head demonstrated a moderate to high level of commitment, characterised by strategic leadership and consultative decision-making. Their advocacy at senior institutional levels was notable, though responsiveness varied at times. Champions showed consistently high commitment, especially when facilitating workshops and motivating peers. However, their effectiveness was sometimes influenced by the presence or absence of incentives, indicating that extrinsic motivation played a role in sustaining their efforts. Lecturers exhibited mixed levels of engagement. While some actively employed innovative facilitation techniques and collaborated with peers, others participated inconsistently, particularly in training sessions. This variability suggests a need for deeper capacity-building and engagement strategies. Students had limited awareness of the broader transformation agenda but responded positively to inclusive content and demonstrated moderate to high participation.

Challenges and barriers experienced

All stakeholders experienced significant stress, particularly as a result of time constraints, epistemological resistance to Afrikan content and overload. These stressors reflect both personal and systemic tensions around transformation. Lecturers faced high stress levels, especially when adapting to unfamiliar pedagogies and navigating the technological demands of the ODeL environment. Interpersonal and departmental resistance also emerged as a barrier, indicating underlying ideological and structural inertia. Even though students struggled with understanding new assessment methods, they welcomed the change.

Strategies and support structures

Communities of practice and regular reflective engagements were observed to enhance collaboration and build trust. These informal structures contributed to a moderate to high sense of commitment, depending on how well they were facilitated. Lecturers expressed a clear need for ongoing mentorship and clarity regarding transformed curriculum models. When such support was present, commitment levels were noticeably higher. CT head and champions who emphasised communication and feedback loops fostered a high level of commitment, underlining the importance of transparent, consistent leadership in navigating change.

Findings from one-on-one individual interviews and focus group results

Theme 1

The roles and contributions of different stakeholders in the CT process.

Findings indicated six stakeholders who played the role in the transformation agenda, namely the DHET, institutional management, CT lead, college champions, lecturers and students.

When the researcher asked each of the stakeholders how they were introduced to the CT initiative at the university, this was the individual responses:

One of the institutional committee members responded:

‘As a member of the institutional Curriculum Transformation [CT] Committee the university asked us to draft a proposal to Department of Higher Education and Training [DHET], outlining the key components that constitute curriculum of high-quality including but not limited to principles of Afrikan epistemologies, pedagogical renewal, online teaching, and innovative assessment.’ (CT Lead, Male, 63)

One of the CT champions trained by the institutional committed had this to say:

‘The institutional curriculum transformation committee recruited lecturers who wished to be trained on curriculum transformation principles through attending an online course- and I opted to undergo the training.’ (CT Champion 1, Male, 51)

From the champions, the transformation agenda was cascaded to the implementers who were the lecturers commented:

‘I saw a call by the institutional CT committee for training as CT champions and later we were invited to workshops where we were equipped with the required competence in curriculum transformation practices in teaching and learning.’ (Lecturer 1, Female, 48)

It also became evident that the buy-in was also sought from students whose uprisings contributed towards the initiation of the transformation agenda:

‘The university CT team recruited me to be part of their piloting processes on CT through an online course called Massive Open Online Course [MOOC].’ (Student 1, Male, 35)

The findings also revealed that all stakeholders were assigned specific roles, which they carried out with enthusiasm and dedication to advance the success of the transformation agenda. In as much as there is still a controversy on what a ‘curriculum’ entails, this matter was addressed by the institution backed by the DHET to work on CT principles that would lead to an inclusive quality curriculum, as well as the how part of the transformation agenda. Participants responded to the question about the key roles they played in different ways:

‘My role was first to work with the institutional CT committee to draft the proposal to DHET, outlining the key components that constitute curriculum of high-quality, and secondly train academics through an online course after the proposal was approved.’ (CT Lead, Male, 63)

One of the CT champions answered:

‘[T]ogether with other champions, we were tasked to train new champions through an online course and conduct workshops on how to infuse the curriculum transformation principles in our modules and our daily teaching. Our institution was moving towards being fully online, so we trained colleagues on how to use technology, something which led a change on how they used to teach and assess students.’ (CT Champion 2, Male, 52)

Another stakeholder whose role was to make sure that the CT principles are infused indicated:

‘In our department, we were writing new modules. What I liked most was that we were expected to add the African knowledge systems to make sure our own culture appears on the modules-we are moving away from apartheid.’ (Lecturer 2, Female, 55)

In the same breath, another lecturer added:

‘[T]he institution changed to be fully online. I was forced to change the way I was planning my lessons, teaching, and assessing the students in accordance with the new learning management system.’ (Lecturer 3, Female, 58)

Everyone was taking part, even students – one student said:

‘[A]s student representatives, we shared the MOOC training with other students to make them welcome the transformation agenda. ‘ (Student 2, Male, 30)

The findings indicated that, above all other principles, stakeholders worked hard to integrate the earmarked principles of Afrikan epistemologies, pedagogical renewal, online teaching and innovative assessment into course content and structure. The institutional committee focused on these principles while designing a new curriculum, the CT lead supported this:

‘These principles formed part of our training through an online course. Transforming the curriculum warranted the creation of the balance between western and African knowledge systems. The university was also moving towards being fully online-so academics needed training on online teaching and innovative assessments to cater for inclusivity and diversity.’ (CT Lead, Male, 63)

It appeared that CT champions focused on these principles when preparing workshop presentations. For example:

‘These principles formed part of the online training for academics. Our departmental and college workshops included showcasing on how to apply these principles giving practical examples.’ (CT Champion 4, Female, 38)

After receiving training, lecturers were able to infuse the principles in the new modules, and in their daily teaching:

‘I infused them on the new modules I wrote. I gave practical examples from an African culture, the new modules were uploaded on Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment [MOODLE] which is fully online, and a variety of assessment strategies were applied.’ (Lecturer 4, Male, 55)

Theme 2

Challenges and barriers encountered by stakeholders during CT, particularly in integrating Afrikan epistemologies, pedagogical renewal and innovative assessment.

From the findings of this study, it appeared that the CT agenda was not without challenges. All stakeholders indicated some barriers to an effective implementation of change in an OdeL institution. The CT lead indicated that, in general, the academics in the institution saw the CT process as huge change where they were expected to infuse Afrikan knowledge systems into the Western knowledge system, which has been existing for decades. Changing to an online mode of delivery made things worse.

This was the CT lead response towards challenges experienced:

‘Some academics did not welcome the change, to them this change was demanding since all along the institution was practising a Eurocentric curriculum, a change towards infusing an Afrocentric curriculum was according to academics taxing. The worst blow was experienced when DHET stopped funding the CT agenda, everybody was demotivated, and it was difficult to take champions back to the initial level of momentum, where they conducted rigorous workshops.’ (CT Lead, Male, 63)

The resistance to change was also experienced by CT champions who were involved in training academics on how to infuse the CT principles:

‘When we were conducting workshops on these principles, one could feel the negativity of colleagues towards the change to online teaching, infusion of Afrikan indigenous knowledge systems and different forms of assessment. Lecturers were not actively involved in these workshops because they seem to be overwhelmed by the change which was to be implemented very soon. Those who participated voiced negative feelings towards this process. I think I need training or support in dealing with negative comments- they cause stress.’ (CT Champion 5, Female, 58)

Findings indicated the frustrations experienced by the implementers of change (the lecturers) who indicated that the change was sudden and that they were not provided with enough time to acclimatise themselves with the nitty-gritty of the new curriculum. To some academics, infusing these principles was forcing them to move away from their comfort zones, and while some of them were ready to adopt new ways of teaching, some felt that the status quo should remain:

‘The curriculum transformation champions put a lot of pressure on us -they expected us to start infusing the CT principles after the training and that was not easy. We are used to doing things the old way and I do not see a problem with the way we used to do things. I have been teaching my module for almost five years; I already have question bank. With the new way of doing things, I was forced to change assessment methods and tools- that required more time which we do not have in academia.’ (Lecturer 5, Male, 57)

‘It was too much work to start infusing the principle of Afrikan epistemology- remember we are used to western knowledge, switching over to Afikanisation took us a lot of time and it was like we are starting a new module. There are a few sources written by African scholars to use when we prepare content or provide examples.’ (Lecturer 6, Female, 53)

Findings affirmed that moving from a blended mode of teaching and learning to a fully online mode caused some challenges to the implementers of the transformation agenda:

‘It was so difficult for me to change to the new learning management system [MOODLE]. Remember I am not competent in using technology, look at my age, I am almost 58 years old. I need more training.’ (Lecturer 3, Female, 58)

Theme 3

Strategies and support structures are needed to overcome these challenges and promote sustainable curriculum change in an ODeL context.

Participants realised that for an effective process of transformation, they should work on minimising stakeholder misunderstandings. Actions were taken to mitigate challenges experienced:

‘[T]he resistance by academics to accept change and the CT champions’ yell for help to make lecturers infuse the CT principles led to review meetings where new strategies were developed, such as conducting more workshops where the champions showcased how to infuse the principles.’ (CT Lead, Male, 63)

‘[T]he improvement we made was to hold joint workshops where the champions from different colleges worked together to tackle each principle. This practise helped to share our expertise and resulted with quality training.’ (CT Champion 4, Female, 38)

Since most resistance came from the lecturers, the CT champions worked hard to engage these lecturers by giving them slots during workshops to show how they infused the principles:

‘I started seeing positiveness from the lecturers after we selected some of the lecturers to showcase their work. All the time we did that as champions and that had little impact.’ (CT Champion 3, Female, 40)

‘After showcasing my work during the college workshop, colleagues in my department asked to see how I did that and after some time, every colleague started doing it.’ (Lecturer 6, Female, 53)

Stakeholders indicated that there were some identified gaps that needed attention. The CT lead saw the process of transformation to be an ongoing process, which needs funding:

‘After DHET stopped funding the process, the CT team was demotivated. The rigorous workshops were becoming less. I would advise the institutions to manage the process internally and not depend on external funding to keep it alive.’ (CT Lead, Male, 63)

CT champions also show some dissatisfaction towards the cutting of incentives and the increased workload:

‘The institutional committee supported us, but the cutting of incentives demotivated most of us. The incentives kept us motivated to do even more.’ (CT Champion 1, Male, 51)

‘As a champion, my workload increased, and I neglected some of my responsibilities. Institutions must appoint champions who must focus on the transformation agenda only.’ (CT Champion 5, Female, 58)

Lecturers also needed more time for implementing change, and the process should be continuous.

A lecturer commented:

‘The workshops conducted by the CT champions really helped me to infuse the CT principles in my daily teaching. I was beginning to enjoy the new pedagogical renewal, but suddenly the level of support decreased. Institutions must realise that change is a process, it takes time and needs constant and continuous support.’ (Lecturer 6, Female, 53)

Discussion

The findings reveal that CT was a collaborative effort involving a wide range of stakeholders. These included the DHET, which provided the grant that funded the CT initiatives; the institutional CT team, which responded proactively by establishing guiding principles for the transformation agenda; and the CT lead, who worked alongside college champions to conduct training through an online course. This course aimed to equip participants with the knowledge and tools to embed the new principles into existing modules. Lecturers played a crucial role in implementing these changes in the classroom, while students – whose activism and demands sparked the call for a more inclusive curriculum – were central to the transformation process. The institution’s approach aligns with existing literature emphasising that CT should include all actors with a vested interest in education (CHE 2013; Jongbloed et al. 2008). Workshops and training sessions were organised to ensure that each stakeholder understood their role, both individually and collectively, in achieving the shared goals (Alsubaie 2016; Law 2022). Notably, the inclusion of student voices marked a significant departure from traditional curricula, where they had often been marginalised. This pattern aligns directly with stakeholder theory, which posits that meaningful transformation occurs only when all actors with legitimate interests – especially those historically excluded – are recognised as essential partners in decision-making.

Importantly, the involvement of students extended beyond a reactive response to the Fees Must Fall movement – it was also a deliberate strategy to enhance student engagement and motivation (Bass 2012; Samson 2019). The partnership with students served not only to acknowledge their grievances but also to actively involve them in shaping the future of their education. As Student 2 noted: ‘As student representatives, we shared the MOOC training with other students to make them welcome the transformation agenda’. This level of engagement underscores the importance of student agency in curriculum reform and highlights how inclusive collaboration can serve as a catalyst for both structural and cultural change in higher education. From a decolonial theoretical lens, the elevation of student voice represents an epistemic shift that challenges hierarchical knowledge structures and repositions students as co-creators of knowledge rather than passive recipients.

Participant feedback highlighted that institutional stakeholders – beginning with senior management – strategically targeted key areas that catalysed significant changes in the curriculum. As an ODeL institution, the integration of technology into the teaching and learning process emerged as a critical component of CT. Training initiatives focused on the effective use of digital tools, opening new possibilities for higher education delivery (Hicks 2018). This was especially relevant given the institution’s transition to a fully online model. Participants noted that these changes not only modernised the curriculum but also enhanced student engagement and motivation (Daniela et al. 2019). The use of digital devices, even during summative assessments, reflected a broader pedagogical renewal in teaching, learning and evaluation methods. The transformation process – driven collectively by all stakeholders – was thus timely and impactful, leaving a lasting imprint on the institution’s educational practices.

Another major shift identified in the findings was the infusion of African epistemology into the revised curriculum. Participants emphasised that this move was not solely a response to student demands but was also championed by educators. The legacy of the 1976 student uprisings, which protested the imposition of Afrikaans and its erasure of Black identity (Falola 2022), still resonated deeply. Lecturer 2 captured this sentiment, stating ‘We are moving away from apartheid’. For many, incorporating African knowledge systems was viewed as a necessary corrective to historical injustices and a meaningful way to reassert and celebrate African cultural identity within academic spaces (Kamwendo 2016).

Although the study revealed numerous positive outcomes regarding stakeholder collaboration in CT, several challenges also emerged – echoing issues raised in the 2008 and 2015 Higher Education Summits. As with any major change initiative, participants reported barriers to effective implementation at multiple levels. A significant obstacle was the reduction of funding from the DHET. This funding cut disrupted the momentum of the transformation agenda, particularly affecting the CT lead and college champions. These individuals, who had previously received incentives, became demotivated and scaled back the number of workshops they conducted. This supports the argument that successful CT requires sustained investment and commitment over time (RSA 2015). Stakeholder theory helps explain this dynamic, as resource instability weakens the interdependencies required for collaborative transformation and disrupts relational trust among actors.

Resistance was also noted among lecturers, who were responsible for implementing the newly proposed CT principles. Some viewed the process as burdensome, citing inadequate time and support for the transition:

‘The curriculum transformation champions put a lot of pressure on us – they expected us to start infusing the CT principles after the training, and that was not easy.’ (Lecturer 5, Male, 57)

On the other side, college champions themselves reported experiencing work overload, often needing to neglect other responsibilities to prioritise CT workshops. They also encountered negative attitudes from lecturers during workshops, which in turn caused stress. As Champion 5 noted, ‘I think I need training or support in dealing with negative comments – they cause stress’. These sentiments align with Torres (2016), who argues that insufficient guidance in navigating complex transformation agendas can hinder progress. From a theoretical perspective, this resistance illustrates the power dynamics highlighted in critical transformation theory, where mandated change without adequate support generates tensions between institutional expectations and individual agency.

Another challenge arose from the institution’s transition to a fully online university, which proved particularly difficult for lecturers lacking digital competence. As Lecturer 3 shared, ‘I am not competent in using technology. Look at my age – I am almost 58 years old’.

This generational gap in technological proficiency contributed to varied experiences of the transformation process. Stakeholder theory suggests that digital literacy is a foundational condition for pedagogical transformation; thus, lecturers’ struggles reflect deeper structural issues rather than individual inadequacy.

This finding also attests to the fact that CT in ODeL contexts is a complex and multilayered process shaped by pedagogical innovation, technological disruption and deeply rooted socio-political histories. As Matlala (2023) argues, curriculum redesign in ODeL must extend beyond conventional content delivery towards technology-enhanced learning and reflective, participatory pedagogies. This aligns with the findings of Van Rensburg and Matahela (2025), who emphasise that educators play a critical role in mediating transformative learning processes in digitally mediated environments. However, educators and other stakeholders must increasingly navigate institutional pressures, shifting expectations and unfamiliar digital ecosystems.

Although the CT agenda engaged a broad range of stakeholders, the findings revealed that these stakeholders did not share a uniform level of understanding regarding the institution’s goals and priorities. A key finding from this study is that the process remains uneven and, at times, highly contested because stakeholders interpret ‘transformation’ differently. This is consistent with the Council on Higher Education’s (2025) national baseline study, which found wide variation in how South African universities conceptualise CT, often leading to fragmented or incoherent institutional responses. Such conceptual misalignment complicates collaborative curriculum work, especially in ODeL systems where stakeholder groups seldom occupy the same physical or epistemic spaces. This misalignment contributed to several challenges during the implementation process. For transformation efforts to succeed, it is essential that all involved parties develop a shared understanding of institutional needs and direction, thereby fostering a sense of ownership and commitment (Mohamed 2023). In this case, many lecturers lacked a clear grasp of the university’s long-term objectives – a gap that required more time and strategic communication to address. As Beerkens and Udam (2017) argue, shared understanding among stakeholders enhances both support for and legitimacy of institutional change efforts. Stakeholder theory reinforces that such misalignment is expected when actors hold divergent interpretations of institutional goals, and that transformation requires dialogic processes to build shared meaning and legitimacy.

The findings also underscored that change is an ongoing process, requiring flexibility, patience and adaptation. Reformers must be willing to revise their strategies as conditions evolve (Law 2022). For example, the CT champions repeatedly offered the same workshops, assuming that frequency would improve participation. However, this approach failed to yield increased engagement. These results suggest the need for alternative strategies to secure broader stakeholder buy-in – possibly through more interactive, tailored or context-sensitive engagement approaches.

Another key barrier was the overreliance on external funding. When such funding was reduced, the transformation agenda lost momentum. This highlights the need for sustainable internal funding mechanisms to ensure long-term success. As Leisyte and Westerheijden (2014) suggest, revitalising transformation efforts requires ongoing negotiation among stakeholders, while Iradel (2018) emphasises that such negotiations are central to continuous improvement. Establishing robust internal structures for dialogue and resource allocation may therefore enhance the resilience and effectiveness of future transformation initiatives. Viewed through the theoretical framework, sustainable transformation requires both structural alignment (stakeholder theory) and epistemic commitment (decoloniality), highlighting the interdependence of material resources and ideological shifts.

Taken together, the findings validate the theoretical framework guiding this study by demonstrating how stakeholder interdependencies, decolonial imperatives and ODeL pedagogical logics intersect to shape the possibilities and constraints of CT. The overall implications of the observations point to a highly context-sensitive transformation process, where commitment and stress levels are shaped by leadership practices, incentive structures, institutional support and stakeholder agency. Sustainable CT, particularly in an ODeL context, requires strategic alignment between motivation, communication, capacity building and inclusive practices that actively involve all stakeholders – especially students and lecturers who are central to curriculum delivery and experience.

Limitations of the study

Although the research questions guided the overall framing of the study, the coding process incorporated both deductive and inductive approaches to allow for the emergence of unexpected meanings. During analysis, I remained open to alternative patterns and contradictions by repeatedly reviewing the data and comparing provisional codes across stakeholder groups. While several interesting insights surfaced – such as tensions around institutional hierarchies and differing levels of digital readiness – these did not have sufficient depth across the dataset to form independent, stand-alone themes. Their presence is, however, acknowledged in the discussion as cross-cutting issues. The limited emergence of fully new themes may also be attributed to the structured nature of the CT meetings, which focused participants on the same institutional priorities, thereby narrowing the range of divergent perspectives.

Conclusion

This study examined an underexplored dimension of CT in an ODeL institution by providing a firsthand account of stakeholder collaboration, the challenges encountered and the pathways identified during the process. The findings showed that the transformation agenda – driven collaboratively by DHET, university management, CT champions, lecturers and students – benefited significantly from the DHET-funded initiatives, particularly the online course on integrating CT principles into curriculum design and pedagogical practice. Evidence from participants demonstrated that the application of these principles led to meaningful pedagogical renewal, with technology opening new possibilities for enhancing teaching, learning and student engagement. The study also revealed that inclusive communication practices strengthened relationships between students and the university, moving beyond the ‘Fees Must Fall’ tensions towards more participatory knowledge co-creation.

However, the data also highlighted substantial barriers: limited and inconsistent funding, resistance to change among staff, inadequate managerial support and severe time constraints for CT champions tasked with implementation. These challenges directly shaped the following recommendations:

• Sustained staff support and capacity building are essential, as the evidence showed that implementers struggled with new responsibilities, digital tools and shifting pedagogical expectations.
• Internal, stable funding mechanisms are needed because reliance on external grants, as demonstrated in the findings, led to interruption of transformation activities when funding cycles ended.
• Targeted training for those leading transformation is required, given the documented difficulties CT champions faced in navigating resistance, facilitating collaborative processes and modelling new practices.
• Curriculum transformation must remain a continuous, iterative process, as indicated by stakeholders who emphasised the ongoing nature of technological change and the evolving decolonial agenda.
• Dedicated time for the transformation team is necessary because the findings showed that competing workloads severely constrained their ability to coordinate, implement and monitor transformation processes.

Acknowledgements

The author declares that she has no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced her in writing this article.

Florah M. Teane: Conceptualisation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – review & editing. The author confirms that this work is entirely their own, has reviewed the article, approved the final version for submission and publication, and takes full responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Data sharing is not applicable to this article, as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References