Scoping reviews address broad research questions (Arksey & O’Malley 2005; Marebane & Mnkandla 2025; Vinnakota 2024). The PCC framework guided the development of the broad research questions by clearly defining the key elements of the review. The Population comprised educational institutions and their users, such as administrators and applicants. The Concept focused on OASs, including their characteristics, factors influencing them, and information systems theories or models used in previous studies, while the Context is the educational sector. By defining these three elements, the PCC framework ensured that the research question remained focused and relevant, while allowing the review to capture the breadth of available evidence on OASs in the education sector. Therefore, the PCC framework helped to formulate one main research question and three sub-questions to unearth the breadth and depth of the literature on OASs in the education sector, as discussed in the introduction section:

Main research question:

Sub-research questions:

The inclusion and exclusion criteria helped to identify which data would be extracted and presented looking at the population of the research study (Peters et al. 2015, 2020). Peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings and online newspapers published between 2020 and 2025 were reviewed (Figure 1). The review considered records focusing on all dimensions of the OAS, including implementation, adoption, usage, evaluation, and studies aimed at measuring the success and sustainability of these information systems. It also examined issues such as system performance, usability and user satisfaction from the user’s perspective. Opinions, marketing documents, non-reviewed reports, departmental policies, legislation and government frameworks were excluded. Articles that focused on court proceedings related to problems with access to education for foreign learners were also excluded. The review excluded records or articles focusing solely on the development and design of the OAS. Lastly, records published prior to 2020 were excluded, as well as records published in languages other than English.

The following Boolean operators were used to identify potentially relevant articles, ‘online admission system’ OR ‘online application system’ OR ‘electronic admission’ OR ‘school registration’ OR ‘university admissions’ OR ‘online registration’ OR ‘computerised selection system’ OR ‘computerized selection system’ OR ‘student enrolment system’ OR ‘student enrollment system’ OR ‘school acceptance system’ OR ‘school placement system’ AND ‘school’ OR ‘higher education’ OR ‘college’ OR ‘education sector’ OR ‘educational institutions’ OR ‘university’ OR ‘tertiary institution’. An additional search was conducted on 22 June 2026 using the following search terms: ‘e-admission’ OR ‘online student registration’ OR ‘centralized school admission system’ OR ‘digital admission system’ OR ‘web-based admission system’, using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. The search terms were identified based on the objective of this study, which was discussed under the introduction.

Data search was conducted on 01 October 2025. An additional search was conducted on 22 June 2026. The databases selected for this scoping review were ERIC, EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect and JSTOR; Google Scholar (a search engine) and two AI platforms, Elicit and Perplexity AI (see Table 2). The identified databases and Google Scholar were considered appropriate because the review focuses on an interdisciplinary topic that draws from education, information systems, OASs, digital service delivery and user experiences in public educational institutions. ERIC was included due to its strong focus on education-related research. EBSCOhost and ScienceDirect were selected because they provide access to literature across multiple disciplines, including information systems, educational technology and digital service delivery. JSTOR was included to broaden the search on education and social science literature. Google Scholar was used as a supplementary source to identify additional relevant studies across different academic disciplines. Using multiple databases helped to broaden the scope of the search and minimise the possibility of excluding relevant evidence. Elicit and Perplexity AI were used because Elicit is generally more suitable for conducting formal literature reviews, as it is specifically designed to identify, analyse and synthesise academic research. Perplexity is more useful during the initial stages of a study, where researchers need to explore a topic, understand key concepts, identify relevant keywords and stay informed about recent developments in the field. Together, these tools supported this study in locating recent studies and understanding existing knowledge within the OASs in the educational sector.

A total of 981 records were identified through Google Scholar (n = 278), JSTOR (n = 329), ERIC (n = 20), EBSCOhost (n = 203), ScienceDirect (n = 81), Elicit (n = 50) and Perplexity AI (n = 20). Records found were exported to the EndNote referencing tool. Thirty-five duplicates were identified and removed using the EndNote referencing tool. After removing these duplicates, 946 records remained for further screening.

The titles and abstracts of the identified records were screened. After screening 946 records, 916 were excluded. The records were excluded because they were not aligned with online admissions, online registrations or online acceptance in the education sector. Some focused on government policies; others focused solely on the development and design of OAS; others discussed online learning and e-payments of fees; and others were about online admissions in the health and hospitality sectors. Others were published prior to 2020. During the second phase or additional search (22 June 2026), we found others published in 2026, which were excluded as well.

Full texts assessed for eligibility were 30. The authors assessed whether records had research questions, clear methodology and theories used, and whether results were aligned with the research questions. After this exercise, 12 records were excluded for the following reasons: the body of these articles did not focus on OASs, some addressed school segregation, school records systems, and school management information systems, while others had incorrect dates. Additionally, some studies were not relevant to the study context, while others discussed court cases concerning the rights of foreign children to access schools in the South African context.

Stage 5 aims to answer the main research question and three sub-questions framed in stage 1. In addition, Appendix 1 illustrates 18 selected records and how related they are to the study. No critical appraisal was included because the review aimed to map the available evidence rather than assess the methodological quality of the included studies (Peters et al. 2020). To address RQ1, ‘How is research on Online Admission Systems in the education sector characterised?’, to answer this question, the emphasis will be on the problems identified by selected studies, the methodology used and the type of institution that adopted OASs.

Table 3 presents a distribution of problems identified in OASs’ studies. The reviewed studies show that the literature has predominantly examined the implementation (S5, S6, S8, S10 and S11) and usage (S1, S2, S3, S5, S9, S12, S13, S16, S17 and S18) of OASs, with comparatively fewer studies investigating user-centred outcomes such as user acceptance (S1 and S7) and user satisfaction (S4). This indicates that the evidence has primarily addressed the operational use of these systems, and it highlights the need for further research that evaluates users’ experiences and the longer-term performance of these systems. Furthermore, research methodologies and methods used in OAS are predominantly quantitative (S1, S4, S7, S9, S13, S16 and S18), as compared with other methods. This suggests that research should move beyond cross-sectional surveys towards mixed-methods, longitudinal and design science approaches that can examine causal relationships, system evaluation and long-term value realisation. The results also show few studies in basic education (primary and secondary level) (S2, S6 and S15) compared with higher institutions. Therefore, there is a need to investigate other dimensions such as success, sustainability and effectiveness of OAS in basic education settings, where unique institutional, infrastructural and socio-economic challenges may influence system outcomes. This would expand the body of knowledge and support evidence-based decision-making for school admission systems. Overall, the results show that many education systems are turning to digital admissions to improve access and efficiency.

RQ2: What factors influence the Online Admission Systems in the education sector: The reviewed studies identified several factors that were investigated on OASs across different educational contexts. These factors reflect the technological, organisational and user-related characteristics that shape the operation of OASs and users’ experiences during the admission process (see Table 5):

While these findings highlight key factors influencing OAS, they further indicate that most studies examine factors in isolation. For instance, usability was studied separately from infrastructure, user satisfaction was studied independently of user readiness, and technical performance was studied separately from equity and access concerns. This calls for investigating how these factors interact and influence system effectiveness and success. Additionally, there is limited focus on promoting equity and inclusion for rural communities, marginalised groups and applicants with limited digital literacy, a significant gap, particularly in South Africa and other developing countries.

RQ3: What Information Systems (IS) theories have been used in Online Admission Systems studies?: A range of theoretical and analytical approaches were used in the selected studies. Established Information Systems theories such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (S1 and S7) and the DeLone and McLean model (D&L) (S4 and S18) were represented in the reviewed studies. The results further indicate that research on OASs in the education sector largely focuses on factors influencing these systems rather than applying established Information Systems theories, frameworks and models, with most theoretical perspectives being drawn from disciplines outside Information Systems and Informatics. The review further demonstrates that OAS outcomes are not determined solely by system functionality but by the interaction of technological (S2, S4, S18, S5, S8, S12, S13 and S17), human (S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, S9, S12, S14, S17 and 18) and organisational factors (S3, S4, S5, S6, S11, S14, S15, S18). This highlights the need for future studies to employ socio-technical and Information Systems theories to better explain OAS effectiveness, adoption, sustainability and success. However, these studies were useful and important for this scoping study, which aims to unearth the literature on OAS.

The findings reveal that the adoption (Makhenyane & Omoruyi 2021; Khangala 2024; Mvula 2021) and implementation (Anarado & Okafor 2021; Pant 2022; Khangala 2024; Pagay-Cierva 2024) of these systems in the education sector are not a major challenge. Usage (Firdaus 2025; Bantug et al. 2021; Berro et al. 2025; Gilbas et al. 2025; Mina et al. 2021; Uska, Wirasasmita & Fahrurrozi 2020; Villafuerte 2023) was the most common problem area associated with OAS in the education sector. More studies are needed to investigate usage in these systems, including other dimensions such as evaluating, assessing and measuring the success and sustainability of these systems, which were underrepresented. Furthermore, methodological concerns were less prominent in the reviewed studies; however, the findings suggest a need for more research using pragmatic approaches. In addition, the studies were conducted in various disciplines, compared to Information Systems and Informatics. The findings also reveal that most studies focused on OAS in higher education institutions, particularly universities, while basic education at primary and secondary school levels remains underrepresented. The findings from Table 4 indicate that some factors were reported across several studies, while others appeared less frequently, suggesting a constantly changing emphasis in the literature. Factors such as system usability and ease of use (Firdaus 2025; Berro et al. 2025; Gilbas et al. 2025; Makhenyane & Omoruyi 2021; Moshoeu & Bruhns 2025), system reliability and performance (Mina et al. 2021; Moshoeu & Bruhns 2025), information quality (Kurniastuti et al. 2025; Moshoeu & Bruhns 2025), service quality (Kurniastuti et al. 2025; Moshoeu & Bruhns 2025) and technical support (Firdaus 2025; Kurniastuti et al. 2025; Moshoeu & Bruhns 2025; Pagay-Cierva 2024) were among the factors reported by multiple studies. This shows that the literature consistently highlights the importance of systems that are easy to use, reliable, capable of providing accurate information and supported by appropriate technical support. The findings differed regarding information quality. Moshoeu and Bruhns (2025) reported that information quality was positively associated with both user satisfaction and behavioural intention; in contrast, Kurniastuti et al. (2025) found that information quality was associated with system use but not with user satisfaction. These studies also differed in their findings on service quality; Moshoeu and Bruhns (2025) reported that service quality was associated with user satisfaction but not with behavioural intention. While Kurniastuti et al. (2025) found that service quality was associated with both system use and user satisfaction. These information systems need a robust ICT infrastructure to function effectively (Khangala 2024; Mvula 2021). Accessibility, digital inclusion and availability (Gilbas et al. 2025; Khangala 2024), security and privacy (Uska, Wirasasmita & Fahrurrozi 2020) and process efficiency (Makhenyane & Omoruyi 2021; Pagay-Cierva 2024; Moshoeu & Bruhns 2025; Uska, Wirasasmita & Fahrurrozi 2020) suggest that these factors and a technological environment in which an OAS operates, together with secure access are recognised as important consideration across different educational settings. User satisfaction was seen as the most important factor in OAS; the implementation of these information systems would fail without this factor (Berro et al. 2025; Fachrizal & Jasmina 2024; Moshoeu & Bruhns 2025; Uska, Wirasasmita & Fahrurrozi 2020). User training and user readiness ensure the smooth adoption, implementation and use of OAS (Kurniastuti et al. 2025; Makhenyane & Omoruyi 2021; Moshoeu & Bruhns 2025). Gilbas et al. (2025) indicate that a clearer, simple and accurate OAS will minimise confusion and errors. Collectively, these factors indicate that the literature considers both user-related aspects and system capabilities when examining OAS. While user satisfaction and training were reported in more than one study, decision-support capability was identified in one study, suggesting that it has received comparatively less attention. Finally, transparency and fairness Khangala (2024), communication with users (Anarado & Okafor 2021; Pagay-Cierva 2024), and language inclusivity (Khangala 2024) were reported by individual studies. However, they broaden the understanding of OAS by highlighting aspects related to equitable access, communication, interface quality and language support. It was also mentioned that the Short Message Service (SMS) Notification feature enables instant communication and updates, allowing users to receive prompt responses (Anarado & Okafor 2021; Pagay-Cierva 2024). Overall, the evidence demonstrates that the literature considers OAS from multiple perspectives, encompassing system characteristics, information, service provision, technological resources, user-related factors and operational processes. Established Information Systems theories, frameworks and models were not well represented, where studies that discussed TAM (Berro et al. 2025; Lian 2024) and D&L (Kurniastuti et al. 2025; Moshoeu & Bruhns 2025) emerged on a small scale. Differences were observed in the findings related to IS constructs. Furthermore, this study acknowledges emerging perspectives such as human rights and the Human Rights framework in the South African context (Khangala 2024). This perspective is crucial as it aligns with important elements of OAS such as equitable access, fairness, transparency and the realisation of the right to education, particularly in public basic education. Regarding information quality, Moshoeu and Bruhns (2025) found that information quality positively influences user satisfaction, whereas found that information quality positively influences system use, but not user satisfaction. Differences were also identified in the findings on service quality, (Moshoeu & Bruhns 2025) found that service quality does not significantly influence behavioural intention, whereas Kurniastuti et al. (2025) found that system quality positively affects user satisfaction. There were also contradictions on user satisfaction. Moshoeu and Bruhns (2025) found that user satisfaction does not significantly influence behavioural intention or actual system use. In contrast, Berro et al. (2025) found that user satisfaction has a significant positive influence on intention to use the online enrolment system. However, similar findings were reported for perceived ease of use. Berro et al. (2025) found that perceived ease of use positively influences perceived usefulness and satisfaction but does not directly influence intention to use. Likewise, Lian found that perceived ease of use positively influences perceived usefulness.