Community-Supported Digital Inclusion in Rural Secondary Schools: Evidence from Nkangala District, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa

Introduction

Digital technologies increasingly shape access to information, educational resources, assessment, communication, professional learning, and the skills required to participate in a digital society. However, their expansion has not guaranteed equitable educational participation. Digital inclusion depends not only on access to devices and connectivity, but also on affordability, reliable infrastructure, digital competencies, teacher capacity, institutional support, and opportunities to use technology meaningfully in teaching and learning (UNESCO, 2023; Statistics South Africa [Stats SA], 2024).

These challenges are particularly significant in rural and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, where schools may experience unreliable electricity, inadequate connectivity, limited devices, insufficient technical support, and restricted opportunities for sustained teacher development. Digital exclusion is therefore multidimensional: schools may possess technological resources, but lack the conditions necessary to integrate them consistently into classroom practice (Kgosi et al., 2023; Mwansa et al., 2025). In South Africa, disparities in internet access and the availability of reliable connectivity further complicate efforts to establish equitable digital learning opportunities, particularly in underserved rural communities (Stats SA, 2024).

South African digital development policies recognise digital competencies as important to educational participation and socioeconomic development. The National Digital and Future Skills Strategy emphasises coordinated development of digital capabilities, while UNESCO’s ICT Competency Framework for Teachers highlights the importance of teacher development in integrating technology into pedagogical practice (Department of Communications and Digital Technologies [DCDT], 2020; UNESCO, 2018). These policy perspectives suggest that digital transformation requires more than infrastructure provision; it also depends on professional learning, pedagogical adaptation, institutional support, and locally sustainable capacity (Tzafilkou et al., 2023).

Community participation offers a potential means of addressing some of these interconnected challenges. Community-led and community-supported initiatives may mobilise devices, connectivity, alternative energy, digital skills training, technical assistance, local fundraising, and partnerships that complement formal educational provision (Association for Progressive Communications [APC], 2025). The Zenzeleni Community Networks experience in South Africa illustrates how community participation, local ownership, and partnerships can contribute to connectivity in underserved areas (Fisk et al., 2023). Nevertheless, community involvement does not necessarily ensure long-term sustainability. Initiatives may remain vulnerable when they depend on temporary funding, external organisations, volunteers, or individual teachers without adequate institutional coordination and maintenance arrangements (Sepadi et al., 2025; Mkhize & Hungwe, 2022).

Teachers are central to translating digital resources into educational practice. In resource-constrained settings, they may adapt available technologies through mobile communication platforms, offline materials, shared digital resources, and peer collaboration. However, the effectiveness and continuity of these practices depend on teachers’ competencies, access to support, and the institutional conditions in which they work (Wohlfart & Wagner, 2023; Shambare & Jita, 2025). Digital inclusion should consequently be examined as an interaction among technological access, human capability, teacher agency, institutional support, and community participation rather than as a measure of infrastructure alone (Keating et al., 2022; Ngobeni, 2024).

Nkangala District in Mpumalanga Province provides a context for investigating these relationships in rural secondary education. This study examines five rural secondary schools involved in community-led or community-supported digital inclusion initiatives, including technology provision, digital skills development, teacher support, and partnerships addressing local infrastructural constraints. It considers how school leaders, teachers, and community representatives experience these initiatives, the challenges they encounter, and their perceived contributions to digital access and educational practice. The study does not assume that the presence of community initiatives necessarily produces improved learner outcomes; instead, it investigates stakeholders’ experiences and assessments of their educational contribution.

Although research has documented persistent digital inequalities, discussions often emphasise infrastructure, connectivity, affordability, or individual digital competence without sufficiently examining how these dimensions interact within rural schools. Further contextualised research is needed on how school leaders, teachers, community organisations, local authorities, and other stakeholders coordinate their responses to digital constraints, including the challenges of ownership, maintenance, continuity, and institutionalisation (Mkuzo & Govender, 2025; Boateng & Bloko, 2026). Understanding these relationships is important because community-supported initiatives may provide locally responsive assistance while also exposing schools to fragmented responsibilities and uncertain long-term support (APC, 2025).

This study addresses this gap by conceptualising digital inclusion as a community-embedded socio-technical process in which technological resources interact with human capabilities, teacher agency, institutional conditions, and community participation. It investigates community-led and community-supported digital inclusion initiatives in five rural secondary schools in Nkangala District, focusing on their forms, implementation challenges, sustainability, and stakeholders’ perceived contributions to digital access, teaching practices, learner engagement, and teacher capacity. By examining these dimensions together, the study seeks to inform context-responsive approaches to strengthening digital inclusion in rural South African schools.

The study is guided by four objectives:

1. To identify and describe community-led and community-supported digital inclusion initiatives in five rural secondary schools in Nkangala District.
2. To examine the infrastructural, institutional, financial, and organisational challenges affecting the implementation and sustainability of these initiatives.
3. To explore stakeholders’ perceptions of the contribution of community-supported digital initiatives to digital access, teaching practices, learner engagement, and teacher capacity.
4. To develop context-responsive recommendations for strengthening sustainable digital inclusion through collaboration among schools, communities, government, and other relevant stakeholders.

By examining community participation, teacher capacity, and institutional support together, this study contributes context-specific evidence to debates on equitable digital transformation in African education. Research on digital learning highlights the importance of addressing contextual inequalities and the conditions that enable meaningful technology integration, rather than treating access to technology as sufficient in itself (UNESCO, 2023; Tzafilkou et al., 2023). The study extends this discussion by exploring how community-supported initiatives operate within rural secondary schools and how stakeholders perceive their educational value and sustainability. Its contribution is therefore both empirical and practical: it identifies locally experienced constraints and informs context-responsive approaches to strengthening digital inclusion.

Literature review

Digital inclusion extends beyond access to computers and internet connectivity to encompass affordability, reliable infrastructure, appropriate devices, digital competencies, meaningful technology use, and enabling institutional conditions (Department of Basic Education [DBE], 2024; Shabangu & Jita, 2025). In rural education, these dimensions are interconnected: infrastructure deficits can limit access, while inadequate teacher development, and technical support can prevent available technologies from being integrated into teaching and learning (Duma et al., 2021; Ahiaku et al., 2025). Understanding digital inclusion therefore requires attention to both technological resources and the social, professional, and institutional conditions shaping their educational use.

Rural digital inclusion and the digital divide

The rural digital divide remains a significant educational challenge internationally and in South Africa. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2023) cautions that educational technology does not automatically improve learning quality or equity, emphasising the importance of appropriate implementation, teacher capacity, and institutional support. South African research similarly identifies infrastructure, electricity, connectivity, affordability, and teacher preparedness as interconnected barriers to digital participation (Kgosi et al., 2023; Mwansa et al., 2025).

Differences in household internet access also illustrate the unequal conditions under which learners and teachers engage with digital resources. Although internet access increased in 2023, rural households continued to experience disadvantages relative to urban and metropolitan households, while mobile connectivity remained more prevalent than fixed internet access (Statistics South Africa [Stats SA], 2024). For schools, connectivity alone is consequently an insufficient indicator of digital inclusion. Meaningful participation also requires suitable devices, reliable electricity, technical assistance, and teachers who can integrate digital resources into classroom activities (UNESCO, 2023). Rural teachers may recognise technology’s educational potential but remain constrained by the conditions in which they work (Ramrathan & Moodley, 2024). These constraints establish the need to examine approaches that address digital exclusion as a systemic rather than exclusively technological problem.

Community participation and social capital

Community participation offers one approach to addressing gaps that formal infrastructure provision may leave unresolved. Communities, local organisations, and external partners may mobilise resources, knowledge, technical skills, and social networks to support connectivity and digital skills development (Mkhize & Hungwe, 2022; Hart, 2023). The Zenzeleni Community Networks initiative illustrates the potential of locally embedded participation and partnerships to extend connectivity in underserved South African communities (Department of Science and Innovation [DSI], 2020).

Social Capital Theory provides a useful perspective for examining these processes because relationships, trust, reciprocity and networks can facilitate resource mobilisation, information exchange and collective problem-solving. In rural schools, such relationships may connect educators and school leaders with community organisations, local authorities, families and technical partners. However, participation should not be equated automatically with community ownership. An organisation that donates equipment or provides training may support a school without transferring decision-making authority or establishing local control. Distinguishing community-led initiatives from community-supported interventions is therefore important when assessing participation, accountability and sustainability (Mkuzo & Govender, 2025; Department of Basic Education [DBE], 2025). This distinction also raises questions about who determines priorities, maintains resources and assumes responsibility when external assistance ends.

Teacher agency and digital pedagogical adaptation

Access to digital resources becomes educationally meaningful through teachers’ capacity to incorporate technology into pedagogical practice. Teacher development is therefore central to digital transformation, as technological competence alone does not guarantee appropriate classroom integration (UNESCO, 2023). In resource-constrained settings, teachers may adapt available resources through mobile platforms, offline materials, shared digital content and peer collaboration (Mthethwa, 2023; Department of Communications and Digital Technologies [DCDT], 2020).

Teacher agency – the capacity to make professional decisions and adapt practice within particular institutional circumstances – helps explain why similar resources may be used differently across schools. Nevertheless, agency is not exercised independently of context. Inadequate connectivity, unreliable electricity, limited devices, insufficient technical support and restricted professional development may constrain teachers’ choices and the continuity of digital practices (Shambare & Jita, 2025; Sepadi et al., 2025). Community-supported initiatives may strengthen teacher agency by providing training, resources, and opportunities for collaborative learning. Their contribution, however, depends on whether support becomes embedded in professional practice and school arrangements rather than remaining dependent on individual teachers or temporary projects.

Sustainability of community-supported digital initiatives

Sustainability is a central dimension of digital inclusion because acquiring technology is only an initial stage in its effective use. Continued participation requires connectivity, equipment maintenance, replacement, technical support, and opportunities for teachers to develop their competencies (UNESCO, 2023). Donations and short-term interventions may address immediate shortages without establishing the resources or organisational arrangements required for continued use.

Community-network approaches highlight the importance of local participation, capacity development and sustainable financing (Association for Progressive Communications [APC], 2025). In schools, these considerations translate into questions of institutional ownership, maintenance responsibilities, stakeholder coordination, leadership continuity and integration into school planning. Partnerships may provide valuable resources and expertise, but their longer-term contribution depends on whether they strengthen local capacity and clarify responsibilities. Where arrangements remain dependent on external funding or individual volunteers, continuity may be difficult to maintain (Rasool & Naidoo, 2024). Sustainability should therefore be examined not simply in terms of whether equipment remains available, but also whether schools and their partners can maintain and use digital resources over time.

International and African lessons

International and African experiences suggest that digital inclusion requires coordinated responses involving infrastructure, skills development, institutional support and context-sensitive partnerships (Boateng & Bloko, 2026; Shabangu & Jita, 2025). Community-network initiatives such as Zenzeleni illustrate the potential of local participation and partnerships to address connectivity challenges, while community-network strategies emphasise capacity development, sustainable financing and social inclusion (Department of Science and Innovation [DSI], 2020; APC, 2025).

These experiences offer useful principles but should not be transferred uncritically between contexts. Community initiatives operate within different economic, infrastructural and institutional conditions, and an approach that works in a community-network setting may require adaptation when applied to a secondary school. The relevant question is therefore not simply whether community participation can improve access, but how different forms of participation interact with school leadership, teacher capacity, available resources and public provision. Community initiatives should complement government responsibility for addressing structural inequalities rather than transfer that responsibility to resource-constrained schools and communities.

Synthesis and research gap

The literature identifies rural digital exclusion as a multidimensional challenge involving infrastructure, affordability, connectivity, digital competencies, teacher capacity and institutional conditions (DBE, 2024; Mkhize & Hungwe, 2022). Social networks can facilitate resource mobilisation and knowledge exchange, while teacher agency influences how available technologies are adapted to classroom practice (Ahiaku et al., 2025; Mthethwa, 2023). Research on community networks further demonstrates the potential value of locally embedded participation, but also raises questions about ownership, coordination and long-term support (DSI, 2020; APC, 2025).

A remaining concern is how these dimensions interact within rural secondary schools. In particular, further contextualised evidence is needed on how community participation relates to teacher agency, institutional support and the sustainability of digital initiatives in South Africa. Examining these relationships together can help distinguish the provision of technological resources from the conditions required for their continued educational use.

This study addresses this gap through an investigation of five rural secondary schools in Nkangala District, Mpumalanga Province. It examines the forms of community-led and community-supported digital initiatives, the challenges affecting their implementation and sustainability, and stakeholders’ perceptions of their contributions to digital access, pedagogical practice and teacher capacity. By analysing these relationships within a shared framework, the study seeks to inform context-responsive approaches to sustainable digital inclusion in rural secondary education.

Theoretical framework

This study draws on Social Capital Theory (SCT) and Human Capital Theory (HCT) as complementary perspectives for examining community-supported digital inclusion in rural secondary schools. SCT explains how relationships, networks, and partnerships facilitate access to resources and collective support, while HCT highlights the knowledge and skills required to translate those resources into educational practice (Romanowski, 2022; Wohlfart & Wagner, 2023). Together, the theories provide a framework for analysing how community participation, teacher capacity, and institutional conditions shape digital inclusion.

3.1 Social capital theory

Social Capital Theory provides the primary lens for examining community participation and stakeholder partnerships. Social capital refers to resources and opportunities accessible through social relationships, networks, trust, reciprocity, and cooperation. These relationships can facilitate information exchange, collective problem-solving, resource mobilisation, and professional learning (Keating et al., 2022).

In rural secondary schools, social capital may connect school leaders and teachers with parents, community organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), local authorities, and technical partners. Such connections may facilitate access to devices, connectivity, training, technical assistance, and locally relevant knowledge (Shambare & Jita, 2025; Department of Basic Education [DBE], 2025). However, the existence of partnerships does not necessarily guarantee equitable participation or sustainability. Initiatives may remain vulnerable when decision-making, funding, or technical expertise rests primarily with external organisations or individual champions (Sepadi et al., 2025). SCT therefore helps examine not only which relationships support digital inclusion, but also how participation, shared responsibility, and local ownership influence the continuity of support.

3.2 Human capital theory

Human Capital Theory complements SCT by emphasising the knowledge, skills, and capabilities through which people use resources productively. In digital education, the availability of devices and connectivity does not automatically produce meaningful pedagogical integration; teachers also require appropriate digital competencies, pedagogical knowledge, and opportunities for continuing professional development (Pavez & Farias, 2026; Tzafilkou et al., 2023).

Community-supported initiatives may contribute to developing these capabilities through digital skills training, mentoring, peer learning, and access to instructional resources. Such support may expand teachers’ capacity to adapt technology to classroom needs and respond to local constraints (Mkuzo & Govender, 2025). However, teacher capability operates within wider institutional conditions. Even skilled and motivated teachers may be unable to sustain digital practices when connectivity, electricity, equipment, or technical support is inadequate. HCT therefore helps interpret how teachers acquire and apply digital competencies while recognising that individual capabilities alone cannot overcome structural barriers.

3.3 Complementarity of social and human capital

SCT and HCT provide distinct but interconnected explanations of community-supported digital inclusion. SCT focuses on how relationships and partnerships mobilise resources, while HCT focuses on the knowledge and skills needed to use those resources in educational practice. Their relationship can be represented as an analytical pathway:

Community networks and partnerships → resource mobilisation → teacher capacity and agency → digital pedagogical practice → meaningful digital inclusion.

This pathway is not assumed to be automatic or linear. Institutional conditions – including infrastructure, leadership, maintenance arrangements, funding, and policy support – may enable or constrain each stage. Community relationships may provide resources and professional support, but their educational value depends partly on teachers’ capacity to apply them. Conversely, teacher expertise may have limited practical value when essential technological resources and institutional support are unavailable (Boateng & Bloko, 2026; Mkhize & Hungwe, 2022).

The combined framework consequently treats digital inclusion as an interaction among social relationships, human capabilities, and enabling institutional conditions. It also directs attention to sustainability: community support is more likely to remain useful when skills, responsibilities, and resources are incorporated into continuing school practices rather than depending exclusively on temporary projects or individual participants.

3.4 Relevance to the present study

The framework informs the interpretation of the study’s findings across community partnerships, resource mobilisation, teacher capacity, pedagogical adaptation, and sustainability. SCT guides analysis of how stakeholders collaborate, share resources, and negotiate responsibilities, while HCT informs analysis of teachers’ digital skills, professional learning, and capacity to adapt available technologies. Institutional conditions provide a cross-cutting consideration for understanding why initiatives may be sustained in some circumstances but constrained in others.

Applied to five rural secondary schools in Nkangala District, the framework supports an examination of stakeholders’ experiences and perceptions rather than assuming that community initiatives necessarily improve learner outcomes. Its central proposition is that community participation can help mobilise resources and support, while teachers’ capabilities enable the pedagogical use of those resources; the continuity of these contributions depends on appropriate institutional arrangements. By integrating SCT and HCT, the study examines digital inclusion as a community-embedded process shaped by relationships, human capabilities, and the conditions under which rural schools operate.

Methodology

4.1 Research paradigm and design

The study adopted an interpretivist paradigm, which understands knowledge and meaning as socially constructed and context-dependent (Mertens, 2023; Braun & Clarke, 2021). This paradigm was appropriate for exploring how stakeholders experienced and interpreted community-led and community-supported digital inclusion initiatives in rural secondary schools. A qualitative exploratory design was used to examine how infrastructure, community partnerships, teacher agency, and institutional conditions shaped digital inclusion within resource-constrained settings (Demeke & Ryan, 2022; Hart, 2023). The design prioritised contextual understanding of stakeholder experiences rather than statistical generalisation.

4.2 Research setting

The study was conducted in five rural secondary schools in Nkangala District Municipality, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. The schools were selected because they had experienced community-led or community-supported digital initiatives in contexts where information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure, connectivity, electricity, teacher digital proficiency, and technical support presented challenges (Duma et al., 2021; Mwansa et al., 2025).

The initiatives included device provision, solar-powered ICT facilities, and digital literacy or teacher-support activities. This setting enabled examination of how community partnerships responded to local digital constraints and how stakeholders experienced the implementation and sustainability of these initiatives (DBE, 2026; APC, 2025).

4.3 Sampling strategy and participants

Criterion-based purposive sampling was used to recruit participants with direct knowledge of digital inclusion initiatives, school-level technology integration, or community partnerships. Recruitment involved school leadership, community organisations, and relevant local stakeholders. Participants were selected according to their roles and experience in digital education, resource mobilisation, or technology-related activities.

The study included 40 participants: 10 school administrators, 25 teachers, and five community leaders, as presented in Table 1. This variation provided institutional, pedagogical, and community perspectives on digital inclusion.

Table 1. Participants in the study (n = 40)

Participant group	Number	Role/relevance
School administrators	10	Five principals and five vice-principals involved in school-level digital planning and community engagement
Teachers	25	Five teachers from each school with experience of digital teaching and ICT integration
Community leaders	5	Two local councillors and three NGO representatives involved in digital inclusion initiatives
Total	40

4.4 Data collection methods

4.4.1 Semi-structured interviews

Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 school administrators and five community leaders. Interviews explored institutional barriers, community partnerships, resource mobilisation, strategic planning, and the sustainability of digital initiatives (Clark et al., 2021; Fox et al., 2024).

The interview guide was pilot-tested and addressed perceptions of digital transformation and the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), institutional constraints, community and NGO contributions, and sustainability strategies. Interviews lasted approximately 45–60 minutes. Neutral probing encouraged elaboration, while a reflexive journal documented the researcher’s assumptions and reflections during data collection (Mertens, 2023; Zhou et al., 2024).

4.4.2 Focus group discussions

Five focus group discussions (FGDs), one at each school, were conducted with 25 teachers. Each group comprised five participants. The discussions explored teachers’ experiences of digital pedagogical adaptation, community-supported training, professional agency, collaborative practices, and the sustainability of technology use.

FGDs enabled participants to compare experiences, discuss informal support networks, and identify shared or divergent responses to digital constraints (Kgosi et al., 2023; Mkuzo & Govender, 2025). Each discussion lasted approximately 60–90 minutes. Facilitation encouraged participation across the group and sought to limit domination by individual participants (Demeke & Ryan, 2022).

4.4.3 Document review

Document analysis complemented the interview and FGD data. Materials included non-governmental organisation (NGO) project briefs, school technology-use records, district ICT implementation plans, and relevant departmental memoranda. Documents were selected according to their relevance to digital initiatives in the participating schools.

The documents were examined for information concerning initiative objectives, resource provision, implementation arrangements, and institutional support. Their contents were compared with stakeholder accounts to contextualise reported experiences and identify areas of convergence or difference (Clark et al., 2021).

4.5 Data analysis

Interview and FGD recordings were transcribed verbatim following informed consent. The data were analysed using thematic analysis, with an inductive–deductive approach combining concepts informed by the research objectives and patterns identified in participants’ accounts (Braun & Clarke, 2021).

Analysis involved familiarisation with the transcripts, initial coding, grouping related codes, developing candidate themes, reviewing and refining themes, and interpreting their relationship to the research questions. NVivo was used to organise the qualitative material and support systematic retrieval of coded data. Themes were examined across schools and participant groups to identify shared experiences, divergent perspectives, and contextual differences. Relevant documents were analysed thematically and compared with interview and FGD findings.

Reflexive journalling and analytic memos documented interpretive decisions and the development of themes. Peer debriefing and code–recode procedures were used to examine the consistency of interpretations, as reported by the researcher. These procedures supported transparency by maintaining a traceable connection between the source material, coding decisions, and final themes (Mertens, 2023; Fox et al., 2024).

4.6 Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness was considered through credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability. Credibility was supported by comparing evidence from interviews, FGDs, documents, and different stakeholder groups. Member checking with selected participants provided an opportunity to clarify or confirm relevant interpretations, where applicable (Braun & Clarke, 2021; Zhou et al., 2024).

Dependability was addressed through records of data management, coding decisions, and analytic development. Confirmability was supported by reflexive journalling and review of emerging interpretations. Transferability was addressed through descriptions of the research setting, participant composition, and data collection procedures, enabling readers to assess the relevance of the findings to comparable rural educational contexts (Enworo, 2023).

4.7 Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from University of [redacted]. Participants received information about the study and provided informed consent. They were informed that participation was voluntary, that they could withdraw without penalty, and that confidentiality would be protected.

Pseudonyms or participant codes were used in reporting, and identifying information was removed where appropriate. Research data were stored on password-protected and encrypted devices, in accordance with applicable institutional requirements and data-protection principles. Particular attention was given to power relationships between administrators and teachers. Separate teacher focus group discussions (FGDs) and private interviews were used to support participants' ability to express their views without direct supervisory influence (Clark et al., 2021; Enworo, 2023).

The researcher maintained reflexive records to consider how personal assumptions and positionality might influence data collection and interpretation. Findings were intended to inform context-responsive digital inclusion practices, with dissemination to relevant stakeholders where feasible (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2023; Fox et al., 2024).

Discussion of findings

The findings from five rural secondary schools in Nkangala District reveal how digital inclusion is shaped by the interaction of infrastructure, institutional capacity, community partnerships, teacher agency and sustainability. The five themes suggest that access to technology does not automatically translate into meaningful educational use; rather, digital inclusion depends on the resources available, the capabilities developed, and the support structures sustaining their application (Hart, 2023; Mwansa et al., 2025). Interpreted through Social Capital Theory (SCT) and Human Capital Theory (HCT), the findings highlight how community relationships mobilise resources while teacher capabilities mediate their use within particular institutional conditions (Romanowski, 2022; Wohlfart & Wagner, 2023).

Theme 1: Perceptions of 4IR relevance

Participants recognised the educational potential of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), but their accounts revealed a gap between technological awareness and practical readiness. Although learners' interest in emerging technologies created opportunities for engagement, infrastructure and training limitations restricted schools' ability to respond. This distinction reinforces the argument that digital transformation requires more than awareness or access; it depends on the resources and institutional capabilities needed to support meaningful participation (Department of Basic Education [DBE], 2025; Mwansa et al., 2025).

PR1 observed, “Our learners are starting to see beyond the textbook… asking about coding, robotics, and AI, even though we don't have those resources yet.” In contrast, TR8 stated, “You can’t talk 4IR when there’s no electricity or internet,” highlighting the contradiction between technological aspirations and material conditions. TR12 similarly acknowledged, “There is excitement, yes, but also fear. We are not trained for these technologies,” illustrating how inadequate preparation can undermine teachers' confidence (Sepadi et al., 2025; Tzafilkou et al., 2023).

Community actors attempted to bridge this gap. NGO1 explained, “We are trying to demystify 4IR in rural areas,” indicating how local initiatives can make emerging technologies more accessible and understandable. From an SCT perspective, community relationships can connect schools with additional expertise and resources; from an HCT perspective, such support becomes educationally useful when it develops teachers' and learners' relevant capabilities. Nevertheless, awareness-raising cannot compensate for persistent infrastructure shortages, making coordinated investment in connectivity, electricity and teacher development essential (Department of Communications and Digital Technologies [DCDT], 2020; Association for Progressive Communications [APC], 2025).

Theme 2: Institutional barriers and sustainability challenges

Institutional constraints affected the implementation and continuity of digital initiatives. Participants described slow responses to resource requests, inadequate infrastructure, bureaucratic processes and insufficient maintenance arrangements. These accounts suggest that digital inclusion is influenced not only by resources available to individual schools but also by the institutional systems responsible for providing, maintaining and supporting them (Shambare & Jita, 2025; Duma et al., 2021).

PR2 explained, “We make requests for devices or connectivity, but the response time from the department is painfully slow,” while VP4 observed, “There’s a mismatch between policy ambition and the ground reality in rural schools.” TR6 similarly stated, “We receive new guidelines without resources,” indicating a perceived disconnect between policy expectations and implementation capacity. These accounts illustrate how institutional constraints may limit schools' ability to translate digital policy objectives into practice (Boateng & Bloko, 2026).

The consequences extended to sustainability. TR7 reported, “When that NGO left, the program collapsed,” demonstrating the vulnerability of initiatives that lack continuing support or institutional integration. Although community participation can help address immediate resource gaps, the findings suggest that its contribution may remain temporary where responsibility for maintenance, funding and continuity is unclear (Mkhize & Hungwe, 2022; Department of Science and Innovation [DSI], 2020). SCT helps explain the value of external relationships, but the evidence also highlights the limits of social capital when partnerships are not supported by reliable institutional arrangements.

Theme 3: Community partnerships and strategic planning

Community and NGO partnerships helped participating schools access resources, expertise and digital support that might otherwise have been unavailable. NGO2 reported, “We have distributed tablets and trained over 100 teachers,” while TR14 stated, “Without that NGO’s help, we would have no computer lab today.” These accounts illustrate the resource-mobilising potential of community networks, consistent with SCT's emphasis on relationships as channels through which individuals and institutions access support (Keating et al., 2022; Ngobeni, 2024).

However, participants also identified risks associated with dependence on external assistance. PR5 remarked, “NGOs come and go,” while NGO3 emphasised capacity-building rather than one-off donations. These contrasting perspectives suggest that the value of partnerships depends not simply on the resources delivered but also on whether initiatives strengthen local capabilities and establish arrangements for continuity (Mkuzo & Govender, 2025).

School-level planning emerged as an important weakness. PR3 observed, “We receive equipment, but no budget for maintenance,” while TR9 argued, “We should have a digital plan per school.” These accounts indicate that equipment provision may have limited long-term value when maintenance, budgeting, and responsibilities are not integrated into school planning. The findings therefore point towards a collaborative model in which community partnerships contribute resources and expertise, while schools and public institutions establish the structures needed for continuity (Rasool & Naidoo, 2024).

The theoretical implication is that social capital should not be understood solely in terms of the existence or number of partnerships. Its practical contribution also depends on how relationships are organised, whether responsibilities are shared, and whether external resources become embedded in school-level arrangements.

Theme 4: Pedagogical adaptation to ICT tools

Teachers described adapting available technologies to support teaching despite infrastructural limitations. TR1 explained, “I now use WhatsApp for homework support,” while TR15 observed, “Digital content makes my lessons more engaging.” Other reported practices included downloading materials for offline use and incorporating simulations. These examples indicate that teachers were finding context-sensitive ways to use available resources, consistent with research highlighting the importance of teacher competence and pedagogical adaptation in digital integration (Mthethwa, 2023; Kgosi et al., 2023).

Peer collaboration also supported adaptation. TR20 stated, “We share resources and tips through WhatsApp groups,” while TR22 described mentoring new teachers in digital content creation. Such practices illustrate how professional relationships can facilitate knowledge exchange and informal learning. In theoretical terms, peer networks represent a form of social capital, while the knowledge acquired and applied through these interactions contributes to teachers' human capital (Shabangu & Jita, 2025; Tzafilkou et al., 2023).

Nevertheless, adaptation remained constrained by infrastructure. TR11 noted, “When the internet is down, I go back to chalk and talk,” illustrating how unreliable connectivity can interrupt digital teaching even when teachers are willing to innovate. The findings therefore portray pedagogical adaptation as both resourceful and constrained: teachers can develop practical responses to local limitations, but individual initiative cannot resolve structural shortages of electricity, connectivity, and equipment (Ramrathan & Moodley, 2024; DBE, 2026).

This theme reinforces the complementary value of SCT and HCT. Professional networks provide opportunities for sharing knowledge and resources, while teachers' competencies enable them to adapt these resources to classroom practice. The extent to which such adaptations can be sustained remains dependent on the conditions in which teachers work.

Theme 5: Community-supported capacity-building and teacher agency

Community-supported training contributed to teachers' perceived capacity to use digital resources. TR5 reflected, “The workshop from the local NGO helped me,” while PR1 stated, “Training from outside is often more practical.” These accounts suggest that stakeholders valued training perceived as relevant to their working conditions. This supports the importance of professional development that addresses practical teaching needs rather than focusing exclusively on general technological awareness (Hart, 2023; Shambare & Jita, 2025).

Teachers also described developing their own practices, including WhatsApp groups, Google Forms for feedback, and a “Digital Wall” for learner work. These examples indicate active adaptation rather than the passive receipt of technological resources. From an HCT perspective, such activities reflect the application and further development of practical competencies; from an SCT perspective, collaborative learning and community support can provide the relationships through which those competencies develop (Ngobeni, 2024; Wohlfart & Wagner, 2023).

Ongoing support appeared important to participants. NGO3 explained, “We follow up after training,” while CL1 stated, “We track which schools use the support.” These accounts highlight the perceived value of follow-up and monitoring beyond initial training. They also suggest that capacity-building should be understood as an ongoing process rather than a single intervention. However, differences in teachers' confidence and reported practices indicate that participation in training does not necessarily produce uniform levels of digital capability (Rasool & Naidoo, 2024; Boateng & Bloko, 2026).

Participants also described perceived effects extending beyond teachers. TR7 stated, “Our perceptions are that learners are more motivated when we use these tools,” while PR2 reported, “Parents also ask about online resources now.” These observations suggest possible benefits for learner engagement and school–community interaction, but they represent stakeholder perceptions rather than independently measured learner outcomes. Taken together, the findings position teacher agency as a mechanism through which community support may be translated into classroom practice, subject to the availability of appropriate resources and institutional support.

5.1 Cross-theme synthesis and theoretical implications

Three interconnected patterns emerge across the five themes.

First, adaptation develops within conditions of constraint. Teachers and community actors described practical responses to inadequate infrastructure, including offline resource use, peer collaboration, and mobile communication. These practices demonstrate local initiative, but they should not be interpreted as evidence that communities can independently overcome persistent structural inequalities (Mthethwa, 2023; Ramrathan & Moodley, 2024).

Second, community support requires institutional continuity. Partnerships mobilised resources and expertise, yet participants also reported concerns about maintenance, planning, and the withdrawal of external organisations. This indicates that community participation can complement public provision but cannot replace the institutional responsibilities needed to sustain digital inclusion (APC, 2025; DSI, 2020).

Third, teacher agency connects resources with pedagogical use. Training, peer learning, and experimentation enabled teachers to adapt available technologies to local conditions, although their opportunities remained constrained by infrastructure and professional support (Wohlfart & Wagner, 2023; Sepadi et al., 2025).

Together, these patterns refine the study’s theoretical proposition. SCT helps explain how networks and partnerships mobilise resources, while HCT explains how teachers develop and apply relevant knowledge and skills. Institutional conditions influence whether these forms of capital can be converted into sustained educational practice. Digital inclusion consequently emerges not as an automatic progression from resource provision to educational benefit, but as a relational and context-dependent process (Ahiaku et al., 2025; Fisk et al., 2023).

Policy and practical implications

The findings suggest four priorities for strengthening community-supported digital inclusion in rural secondary schools.

• Integrate digital initiatives into school planning. School-level digital plans should clarify responsibilities for budgeting, maintenance, resource management and continuity, connecting community initiatives with longer-term institutional arrangements (UNESCO, 2023).
• Provide sustained, context-responsive teacher development. Professional learning should combine practical digital skills, pedagogical application, peer mentoring and follow-up support to strengthen teachers’ confidence and capacity to use technology meaningfully (Tzafilkou et al., 2023; Shambare & Jita, 2025).
• Strengthen accountable community partnerships. Schools, NGOs, community organisations and local authorities should establish clear expectations concerning resource provision, local capacity-building, maintenance and shared responsibilities. Partnerships should prioritise durable local capabilities rather than reliance on short-term donations (Mkuzo & Govender, 2025).
• Maintain public responsibility for equitable infrastructure. Community-based innovation should complement, not replace, public investment in electricity, connectivity, equipment and technical support. Without these foundations, locally developed initiatives may remain uneven and difficult to sustain across schools (DCDT, 2020; Mwansa et al., 2025).

Overall, the findings suggest that meaningful digital inclusion in rural secondary schools depends on the interaction of community relationships, teacher capability and institutional support. Community initiatives can mobilise resources and create opportunities for professional learning, while teachers translate available resources into pedagogical practice. The continuity of these contributions, however, depends on reliable infrastructure, sustained capacity-building and institutional arrangements that support local initiatives over time.

Limitations of the study

This study’s focus on five rural secondary schools in Nkangala District limits transferability to settings with different infrastructure, community resources and institutional capacities (Duma et al., 2021; Shambare & Jita, 2025). Learners were not included, meaning their perspectives on digital access, engagement and classroom experiences were not directly examined (Ramrathan & Moodley, 2024; Sepadi et al., 2025). Reliance on interviews and focus groups may also have introduced recall and social desirability bias, although documentary triangulation, member checking and reflexive analysis were used to strengthen credibility (Zhou et al., 2024). Language and researcher positionality may have influenced participants’ responses and interpretation despite reflexive and transparent procedures (Mertens, 2023).

These limitations define the findings’ scope rather than invalidate them. The study offers contextually grounded insights rather than statistical generalisations, providing a basis for further research across more schools and incorporating learners’ perspectives (Hart, 2023; Pavez & Farias, 2026).

Conclusion

This study examined community-supported digital inclusion in five rural secondary schools in Nkangala District, Mpumalanga Province. Findings indicate that although stakeholders recognise the relevance of Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) technologies, infrastructure gaps, limited connectivity, inadequate teacher preparation and inconsistent institutional support constrain readiness (Mwansa et al., 2025; Mthethwa, 2023).

Digital inclusion extends beyond providing devices and connectivity. Community partnerships mobilise resources and training, while teachers use peer learning and locally appropriate technologies to adapt their teaching. These processes illustrate the complementary roles of social capital, which facilitates resource mobilisation, and human capital, which supports the effective use of resources (Romanowski, 2022; Wohlfart & Wagner, 2023). However, weak maintenance, limited planning and dependence on external assistance threaten sustainability (APC, 2025; DCDT, 2020).

The study’s central contribution is to conceptualise rural digital inclusion as an adaptive, relational and institutionally mediated process in which community networks mobilise resources, teacher capabilities translate them into educational practice, and institutional conditions shape sustainability (Fisk et al., 2023; Keating et al., 2022).

Sustainable inclusion, therefore, requires continuous, context-specific teacher development, participatory school digital plans, strategic community partnerships, reliable infrastructure and stronger institutional support. Community initiatives should complement, not replace, the state’s responsibility to address structural digital inequalities in rural schools (Mwansa et al., 2025; UNESCO, 2023).