For decades, the story of educational technology has been a one-way street. Technologists built the tools, and educators were persuaded to adopt them. The end-users, the learners themselves, were rarely part of the conversation. This has led to a flood of digital tools focused on efficiency rather than pedagogy, a point that Dr. Philippa Hardman explores in her latest newsletter.

The Old Model: Efficiency Over Pedagogy

Dr. Hardman argues that the traditional EdTech model has been driven by the wrong questions. Instead of asking, "How do we enable people to learn more effectively?", the industry has been focused on "What will education leaders pay for?". This has resulted in a generation of tools that, while increasing access to learning materials, have rarely deepened understanding or engagement.

As education researchers like Justin Reich in his book "Failure to Disrupt" have pointed out, this approach treats learning as a logistics problem, not the complex pedagogical, social, and cognitive challenge it truly is. The result? A net-negative impact on learning outcomes in many cases, as seen during the pandemic.

A Shift Towards Co-Creation

The good news, Dr. Hardman suggests, is that this model may finally be changing. A new paradigm of "co-creation" is emerging, she says, where educators, learners, and technologists design together from the outset. In design research, this is called participatory design, a model where end-users are collaborators, not just customers. This shift moves us from a procurement-based relationship to one of genuine partnership.

Philippa Hardman says several key initiatives signal this trend:

• Google's AI for Learning Forum: An event focused on co-creation, bringing together educators, technologists, and learners to explore fundamental questions about the purpose of human learning and the role of AI.
• Microsoft's Elevate Strategy: A $4 billion initiative that explicitly commits to co-designing AI solutions with schools, universities, and non-profits.
• OpenAI's Higher Education Partnerships: Collaborations with institutions like Arizona State University and the NextGenAI consortium are framing OpenAI as a platform for co-developing new learning experiences.

These examples, she believes suggest a broader industry realignment where the major players in AI are recognizing that sustainable innovation in education must be built with schools, not just for them.

What This Means for Vocational Education and Training

For us in the VET sector, this shift is particularly relevant. Practices could include co-designing AI-powered simulators for complex manual skills, where apprentices and master craftspeople work directly with developers to ensure the virtual environment accurately reflects the physical task. Or AI-driven assessment tools for work-based learning, built in partnership with industry assessors to provide authentic, real-time feedback.

This new model allows us to move beyond generic platforms and build specialized tools that address the unique needs of vocational learners, from learning paths for reskilling adult workers to immersive safety training for high-risk professions.

Implications for Educators and Designers

What does this mean for practitioners in VET? Dr. Hardman highlights three key takeaways:

1. Pedagogy is becoming a design input. Our expertise in hands-on learning, competency-based assessment, and apprenticeship models is no longer an afterthought but a crucial part of the design process. We need to be ready to articulate these principles and be present in design conversations from the start.
2. Instructional design is becoming systems design. Our role is expanding from designing courses to co-designing the interactions between learners, employers, and intelligent systems. This means translating our pedagogical principles into the very behavior of AI mentors and skills-gap analysis tools.
3. The new essential skill is design thinking. We don't need to become AI engineers, but we do need to think like designers: framing problems, centering the needs of learners and employers, and iterating toward better solutions.

A Call to Action for the VET Community

The future of EdTech is not guaranteed to be better, but for the first time, there is a real opportunity for it to be. As technologists increasingly seek to co-create with us, it is our responsibility to bring our pedagogical wisdom, our understanding of workplace realities, and our critical questions about equity and access to the design table.

This could be through engaging with industry partners, by involving learners in the design process or by developing small-scale, collaborative projects within your institution. and it could be by experimenting with new tools and co-design methodologies to see what works in different contexts in VET.

As Dr. Hardman concludes, if technologists are ready to co-create, what is the one principle from our practice that we want at the center of that design?

About the Image

The image is a digitally altered medieval-style illustration featuring Penelope (from Greek mythology) labeled by name. She appears seated, engaged in weaving—but instead of traditional thread, the loom is overlaid with binary code (1s and 0s), symbolising the opaque processes of algorithmic technologies. This piece contrasts manual weaving with algorithmic generation, and invites questions about who programs, who controls, and who gets displaced or disoriented in the development and deployment of AI. The chaotic table and spilled drink represents the poor implementation of technologies and the unintended consequences that arise when workers are excluded from planning and oversight. The piece combines digital collage and image manipulation, layering classical woodcut imagery with binary code overlays, glitch patterns, and digital motifs like web graphics and transparency grids. A mash-up of medieval manuscript aesthetics and contemporary data visualisation. The clash of styles underscores the tension between old systems of labor and new algorithmic frameworks. All images were taken from public domain. This image was submitted as part of the Digital Dialogues Art Competition, which was run in partnership with the ESRC Centre for Digital Futures at Work Research Centre (Digit) and supported by the UKRI ESRC.