A growing number of students from South Africa prefer contact learning, recognizing the value of the educational process in the classroom, human interaction, and structured support for achieving academic success. Despite the widespread adoption of digital learning, students are increasingly realizing that some aspects of education cannot be replaced by digital platforms.
According to a report by the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) on post-school education and training statistics in South Africa, nearly two-thirds of learners are enrolled in contact programs. Among students at public higher education institutions (HEIs), 65.3% were enrolled in contact programs. Furthermore, undergraduate contact students show an average success rate of 81.6%, significantly higher than the 70.9% rate among distance learning students.
Moreover, the graduation rate among students in contact programs is higher: 25% of bachelor's graduates compared to 15% among distance learning students. Among doctoral students, the graduation rates were 20% for contact programs versus 15% for distance learning. These data underscore the enduring importance of classroom learning in ensuring academic success through structure, support, and regular interaction.
The younger generation is becoming more selective about which parts of their lives they are willing to replace with technology, and education is the last aspect they are willing to compromise on. Digital tools are used to accelerate or facilitate access to knowledge, but there remains a need for parts of education based on human judgment and practical work to take place in the presence of other people.
Many first-year students come from a school environment where teachers controlled the pace of work, monitored attendance, and intervened when difficulties arose. Distance learning eliminates much of this structure, while students must manage large volumes of work independently. The home environment is often associated with distractions and practical limitations, such as family responsibilities, lack of a quiet workspace, an appropriate digital device, or a stable internet connection, none of which many South Africans can still rely on. These conditions significantly hinder consistent study and often contribute to higher dropout and failure rates among distance learning students compared to their in-person counterparts.
Contact learning also provides a clear separation between academic duties and personal life. Commuting to campus and attending scheduled classes gives students a routine and dedicated time for studying. The classroom environment allows for the timely identification of issues such as missed classes, incomplete assignments, or decreased engagement, giving students the opportunity to receive help before their performance suffers. Distance learning students often have to discover these difficulties themselves, seek help, and catch up without the same level of external structure supporting their connection to their studies.
In-person learning combines the stability of the classroom with access to workshops, studios, laboratories, and collaborative workspaces where students can solve problems in environments similar to those they will face after graduation. Thus, the value of campus learning goes beyond mere presence, offering students protected time, visible support, and an environment focused on qualification requirements rather than the competing pressures of the home setting.
Returning to classroom learning can be particularly beneficial for students who require additional structure and support. For those who need such structure in their lives and do not have the necessary resources and support at home to focus on their studies, transitioning to a classroom learning model can be significant, helping them avoid substantial loss of time and money, while better preparing them for graduation and the future.
Imagine that today, in 2026, we were tasked with creating the first college or university. Knowing all modern achievements in technology, human cognition, and rapidly changing labor market demands, would we build it as it looks now? The author believes this would not have happened.
Education has always evolved through significant breakthroughs, such as the invention of the printing press or the advent of the internet. However, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) represents something fundamentally different—it is a structural transformation.
This forces education leaders to ask a profound question: how do we ensure success for every student, given that each student arrives with unique experiences, varying learning speeds, and different baseline levels of confidence?
To answer this question, we must rethink the very architecture of higher education and skills development.
Currently, the skills gap in South Africa is not just an industry problem but also an inherent educational challenge. Employers are actively demanding dynamic competencies such as critical thinking, digital literacy, complex problem-solving, and adaptability.
Nevertheless, traditional education systems face a serious temporal misalignment. Industrial changes occur over months, whereas updating curricula takes years to develop, approve, and implement. By the time a curriculum reaches the classroom, the market has often moved on.
When analyzing problems within institutions, one undeniable fact must be emphasized: teachers are not failing. Rather, the traditional education system places impossible tasks before them. They are expected to teach huge classes, constantly develop changing programs, grade endless amounts of work, support struggling students, and fulfill numerous administrative duties, all while adhering to strict accreditation requirements and conducting research. How can one person provide meaningful, individualized attention to every student under the pressure of the traditional model? The reality is that this is impossible.
For decades, the system required students to adapt to the rigid structure of education. It offered a uniform pace, a single explanation, a singular method of assessment, and one path to success. However, reality dictates the opposite: every student arrives differently, possessing varying levels of language proficiency, prior knowledge, and digital skills. The fundamental shift is that education must adapt to the learner.
To achieve this goal, we must stop measuring mere 'activity.' Traditional systems largely rely on tracking attendance, assignment completion, and module finishing as substitutes for the learning process. But completion does not equal understanding. In the current paradigm, we often learn that a student has not grasped the core material only weeks after final grades have been issued.
What if we could detect confusion the moment it arises? This can be achieved by implementing an advanced, AI-driven adaptive platform for conceptual skill tracking. When learning and assessment occur at a granular conceptual level, rather than at the end of a rigid multi-week module, AI can instantly identify a specific student misconception. It can seamlessly offer diverse explanations, alternative examples, and varying levels of complexity, allowing diverse learners to follow different paths toward the same successful outcome.
This is where the true operational power of AI in education manifests. AI does not replace educators; on the contrary, it equips them with superpowers. By freeing teachers from administrative and routine burdens, AI allows them to focus their limited time on what they do best: human-led teaching, mentoring on complex problems, and empathy.
Consider how AI takes on the heavy lifting to enable this human-centered approach:
However, these technological advancements cannot simply be imported from Silicon Valley and applied in our institutions. They must be developed in South Africa, created by South Africans, and specifically adapted to local realities. An effective AI-based education ecosystem must closely align with our local learning requirements, be securely built around the realities of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) and the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO). It must be designed from scratch to meet the diverse needs of our learners, acknowledging our unique socio-economic constraints and opportunities.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that education does not end with graduation; it concludes with real impact. We must shift our institutions' focus to preparing graduates ready for the future who directly address actual industry needs. To ensure such alignment, institutions and corporate partners must rely on a data-driven impact assessment system that tracks real employment and graduate outcomes. By measuring apprenticeship success, internship performance, and actual post-graduation employment results, we move beyond intellectual learning to measurable, sustainable economic impact.
We stand at the threshold of a new era. We finally have the technological tools to create a continuous, personalized, and evidence-based system that is entirely learner-centric, heavily supported by AI, yet deeply and beautifully managed by humans.
The author leaves all institutions, TVET colleges, and higher education leaders with this challenge: instead of asking how to seamlessly integrate AI into existing outdated systems, ask yourselves: if we were designing education from scratch today, knowing what is possible with AI, would we build it the same way?
