Although South Africa’s post-apartheid education policies officially recognise 11 languages, English remains predominantly entrenched within academic contexts (Mugwaze 2025). Despite the objectives outlined in the 1997 Language in Education Policy to promote equal status for African languages in educational settings, limited progress has been made because of financial constraints and the persistence of colonial ideologies that link academic legitimacy with the English language (Wolff 2017). Consequently, African languages continue to experience marginalisation in the domain of knowledge production (Omodan 2023).

Empirical studies in higher education substantiate the role of English monolingualism in reinforcing linguistic exclusion. Probyn (2009) emphasised that learners from rural and township schools, where English is infrequently used outside the classroom, struggle to grasp subject-specific concepts presented exclusively in English. Furthermore, Nondabula and Nomlomo (2023) demonstrated that academic literacy interventions predominantly focus on English, neglecting to leverage students’ existing multilingual competencies. Consequently, the disparity between knowledge acquired in students’ indigenous languages and their proficiency in English within academic contexts hinders student retention and success in ODeL environments, where self-directed learning is essential.

Open Distance e-Learning has expanded access to higher education for formerly marginalised students, overcoming geographic and financial constraints (Carow, Schmitz & Pretorius 2023). However, ODeL also amplifies challenges related to language inequity. Diminished interaction between lecturers and students in online environments limits opportunities to address language misunderstandings (Sevnarayan 2022). Consequently, students’ comprehension in virtual classrooms is hindered by the lack of immediate feedback and limited language support.

Recent studies also validate that ‘linguistic exclusion is linked with the phenomenon commonly called the “digital divide”’. Mudau (2024) contends that rural students face dual challenges: insufficient internet connectivity and a lack of digital literacy skills necessary to engage proficiently with English-language platforms for academic purposes.

As a result, language proficiency is an exclusionary practice in accessing the ‘digital world’ in addition to epistemic knowledge.

Translanguaging is a concept that redefines language use as flexible, in which bilingual or bicultural people draw on their full range of language and cultural resources to communicate, teach, and learn (García 2017). It challenges the idea of using only one language and instead supports the bilingual approach commonly found in African classroom settings (Wei 2018). In addition, Wei (2018) emphasises the importance of developing a practical language theory that is socially just and rooted in decolonial principles.

In African settings, translanguaging is increasingly seen as a means to connect students’ language backgrounds with the demands of educational institutions. Charamba (2023) demonstrated that allowing students in multilingual science classrooms to use African languages and English greatly enhanced their grasp of concepts and boosted their confidence. Similarly, Likewise, Makhanya and Levy (2024) contend that translanguaging serves as both an educational strategy and a means of epistemic resistance, allowing African students to express knowledge in ways that align with their cultural backgrounds.

Despite these successes, the integration of translanguaging in web-based and ODeL settings has yet to be adequately investigated in academia. As face-to-face learning environments have begun adopting an ideology that embraces multilingualism in constructing meaning, web-based learning is likely to remain English-centric, as it is technologically limited (Yafele 2024).

When appropriately employed, technology is also key to enabling language inclusion. Existing research on the design of e-learning content demonstrates the use of open educational resources (OERs) and bilingual electronic glossaries to support understanding (Makhanya & Levy 2024). Also, Kukulska-Hulme and Pegrum (2018) demonstrate that collaboration using mobile technology enables bilingually engaged learners through WhatsApp and learning management systems.

However, these institutions lack an obvious guiding principle for multilingual e-learning. According to the Council on Higher Education (2023), commitment to multilingualism is unlikely to feature in online course development, let alone in massive ODeL, in lecturers’ training.

The reviewed literature converges on three key insights.

Firstly, the prevalence of English in higher education in South Africa further limits the epistemic opportunities for African-language speakers. Secondly, while ODeL delivery continues to expand access, it also exacerbates language disparities by increasing technological and communication barriers. Thirdly, translanguaging is theoretically valid and suitable for promoting language inclusivity, but its application in ODeL settings is limited. Therefore, there is a clear need to clarify how translanguaging strategies can be adapted for ODeL to enhance access, comprehension, and results for speakers of African languages. This is the study’s focus.

This study draws principally on the concept of translanguaging as a theoretical lens, complemented by perspectives from multimodal and distance-learning theory to situate the ODeL context.

The term translanguaging, as developed by Ofelia García and colleagues, refers to the process by which multilingual speakers draw on their full linguistic repertoires to make meaning, rather than treating languages as discrete, bounded systems. García and Lin (2017) point out that translanguaging challenges monoglossic ideologies and facilitates the development of more authentic pedagogical approaches for bilingual and multilingual learners. Within the context of higher education involving speakers of African languages, translanguaging provides a means to acknowledge and utilise students’ linguistic repertoires, including their home languages and English, rather than marginalising or disregarding these resources.

Key theoretical premises include:

In the ODeL setting, particularly within the South African higher-education landscape, learners who speak African languages as their first language often face multiple barriers: the language of instruction being English; limited interaction with lecturers; physical separation; reliance on digital platforms; and possible limited academic language support. The theoretical lens of translanguaging provides an explanatory and normative orientation: it explains how students may draw on their African languages and English to negotiate meaning and invites pedagogical strategies that accommodate such multilingual practices (Hibbert 2023).

Moreover, ODeL research emphasises that distance contexts require attention to learner support, interaction, and the design of linguistically accessible material. Studies of South African ODeL students highlight issues of access, digital readiness, and feedback systems (Akintolu, Mitwally & Letseka 2024). This study integrates translanguaging theory with findings from ODeL to explore two main areas: how multilingual language practices can facilitate learning in English-centred ODeL settings, and how the design of institutions, teaching methods, and digital platforms can be redesigned to enhance this facilitation.

Participants consistently identified language as the most significant barrier to success in ODeL learning settings, mainly because English dominates course materials, assessments, and online communication, particularly for students whose first language is an African language. One student shared:

This supports Mugwaze’s (2025) view that the dominance of English in higher education is a lingering effect of colonial rule, in which educational systems in most South African institutions are structured around English, a language often not spoken at home (Mafandala 2015), and English is effectively equated with knowledge. Similarly, Wolff (2017) notes that this linguistic dominance remains firmly rooted in universities, while Omodan (2023) points to epistemological exclusion faced by learners of African languages in knowledge production.

Another participant identified the absence of face-to-face teaching as a barrier, stating:

The lack of a lecturer’s physical presence to support students’ understanding appears to contribute to these challenges, consistent with findings on face-to-face learning by Probyn (2009) and Nondabula and Nomlomo (2023). This issue is also evident in the ODeL context, where the absence of immediate lecturer support intensifies language barriers, leading many students to rely on memorisation rather than developing a clear understanding of concepts. Many African languages have underdeveloped written forms in academic contexts, which results in a strong reliance on educational resources produced in English.

In addition, curriculum frameworks often neglect cultural aspects because most African educational resources are developed using Western models that fail to reflect local realities. Another participant mentioned that:

This misalignment between learning materials and students’ lived experiences worsens educational inequalities and increasingly marginalises communities. As a result, students are more likely to experience low self-confidence, adversely affecting their academic achievement and engagement (Vakoufari, Angelaki & Mavroidis 2014).

Twelve of the 20 participants reported similar experiences. However, two participants disagreed, stating:

The second theme highlights that technological obstacles worsen linguistic difficulties. Students from rural or economically disadvantaged backgrounds frequently encounter challenges when navigating English-language interfaces, online learning platforms, and submission systems, resulting in a dual form of exclusion, both linguistic and digital. In South Africa, these challenges are further intensified by limited internet connectivity and inadequate digital infrastructure in remote areas, which significantly restrict access to advanced technologies. One participant explained:

As Wafula (2014) observes, the uneven outcomes of technology-enhanced education disproportionately affect marginalised and non-English-speaking populations, who often lack access to high-quality ODeL content, skilled facilitators, and sufficient digital literacy. Consequently, the transformative potential of ODeL to promote equitable and multilingual education remains only partially realised.

This dual challenge aligns with Mudau’s (2024) assertion that the digital divide in South Africa extends beyond mere access to the internet, including the related issues of language proficiency and digital literacy. One participant observed:

In the same way, Carow et al. (2023) argue that while ODeL expands geographic access, it also increases inequalities for students who lack proficiency in English and sufficient technological skills.

Observations on student responses to these paths also propose developing multilingual guidance tools, bilingual helpdesks, and introductory modules in African languages to cultivate student confidence. Such evidence verifies the need to conceptualise Internet competency linguistically, reinforcing the importance of language accessibility in Internet competency, in line with the principles of translanguaging, where meaning-making is inseparable from language practice.

Prolonged engagement with students, tutors, and the educational system indicates that the linguistic support provided in ODeL contexts is not adequately aligned with the needs of multilingual learners. For example, although orientation activities and writing centre support are well-intended, they tend to concentrate mainly on English language proficiency in relation to academic performance. One participant explained:

The current approach places greater emphasis on grammatical accuracy than on developing a better understanding of ideas in academic writing.

As the lecturer was thoroughly involved in such an environment, it was easy to gain first-hand insight into how these systems structurally disadvantage students who think, reason, and learn in African languages. The system is premised on English being a neutral means of communication, but it functions more as a gatekeeping system. Certainly, this aligns with the Council on Higher Education’s 2023 conclusion that multilingual commitments articulated in policy documents are not effectively reflected in the design of courses or instructional practices in higher education.

In ODeL institutions, the instructional framework exemplifies what Wolff (2017) describes as the ideological monopoly of English, wherein English is established as the prevailing language of knowledge dissemination. This linguistic dominance is further exacerbated by the limited interaction between students and lecturers (Sevnarayan 2022), resulting in insufficient support for students to address language-related challenges independently. Collectively, these dynamics contribute to a persistent language disparity, in which students lacking proficiency in English face systemic disadvantages relative to their peers. This scenario underscores the complexity and ongoing nature of efforts to bridge the language gap, as lecturers and students continue to contend with these inequities within the existing educational paradigm.

An analysis of journaling and experiences related to module management reveals that policy and practice operate concurrently yet lack meaningful interaction. Although institutional policies ostensibly advocate for inclusivity, teaching practices continue to uphold linguistic hierarchies. This situation reflects a phenomenological awareness marked by a disjunction between the aspirational goals articulated in policy and their actual implementation. To prevent ODeL from merely reinforcing its own agenda rather than advancing it, there is a pressing need to reconceptualise multilingualism within the system as a functional principle rather than a symbolic, language-based policy.

Through consistent daily student participation, it is apparent that instructional approaches have effectively fostered the use of self-directed cognitive and affective strategies. Learners organically engage in translanguaging by alternating between isiZulu, Sesotho, isiXhosa, and English while interpreting texts, completing assignments, or supporting peers during online tutorial discussions. This multilingual practice facilitates a deeper comprehension compared to the monolingual academic language mandated by the institution.

Makhanya and Levy (2024) characterise translanguaging as a form of epistemic resistance, a perspective that aligns with recent classroom observations showing how students assert their agency through their mixed-language use. However, translanguaging is still not officially recognised within institutional settings. No formal systems for acknowledging or evaluating multilingual meaning-making and learning management platforms continue to favour English-only communication. As Yafele (2024) cautions, digital learning environments often reinforce monolingual norms because of their technological design. Nonetheless, professional experiences have shown that translanguaging usually emerges as an instinctive survival strategy; a practical example of what García & Lin (2017) describes as praxis.

From a phenomenological perspective, these findings emphasise the existential conflict between mandated policies and students’ experiences. Translanguaging represents a mode of existence within the digital learning environment, where learners navigate academic demands on one side and their cultural backgrounds on the other. Institutional acknowledgement of this would enable the development of purposeful bilingual resources, community glossaries, and virtual collaboration tools equipped with multilingual software (Kukulska-Hulme & Pegrum 2018). This would transform the practice’s traditionally hidden nature into a prominent educational approach that embraces multilingualism in digital scholarship.

Engaging thoughtfully with the ODeL environment reveals complex links between language, technology, and institutional authority. The continued dominance of English monolingualism in the institution is not the result of opposition to change or malicious intent, but rather because it is firmly ingrained in its daily routines, including assessment criteria and the software used.

Given how students’ adaptability aligns with their online research experiences, it is evident that being multilingual is an advantage rather than a weakness. The regular translanguaging practices during sessions can serve as a form of intellectual negotiation, allowing students to draw on all their language skills to overcome the knowledge gap created by English-only policies.

When these insights are viewed through the lens of García’s work on ‘translanguaging’, they represent a fundamental change in thinking; ODeL institutions must intentionally shift from a corrective approach focused on ‘fixing’ learners’ English to one that values their language practices for their own sake. Ultimately, the phenomenological reflection aims to position ‘translanguaging’ within the ODeL system for African learners, transforming it from a mere teaching method into an experiential principle of inclusivity within Africa’s existing sociolinguistic context to address epistemic exclusion in digital distance education.