Digital Garden
A collection of growing thoughts on higher education, edtech, and the future of learning
Neither Top-Down nor Bottom-Up: How Universities Change Their Ways
The language of "top-down" and "bottom-up" runs through almost every conversation about change in higher education. It carries implicit moral weight: bottom-up sounds authentic and practitioner-led, yet also ungoverned and hard to scale; top-down sounds imposed and procedural, yet also coherent and capable of giving scattered efforts a shared direction. The distinction feels self-evidently useful.
When There Is No Expert in the Room
At some point, every conversation about GenAI in education lands on the same question: who is responsible for figuring this out? Senior leadership? IT? The faculty development office? A working group with a mandate expiring in June?
What Happens When AI Starts to Remember?
Up until now, I have only ever used AI chatbots as “simple” yet powerful tools. I give a command, and the system executes a task. I have never felt any urge to use them for casual chatting or in any genuinely conversational way. Because of this, the well-known "amnesia problem" of AI also never really bothered me.
The Space Between Panic and Purpose
At some point in the last two years, most universities will have convened a working group on generative AI. Some will have produced policy frameworks. Many will have run staff development sessions. A good number will have updated their academic integrity guidelines, published guidance for students, or commissioned an internal review. All of this activity is genuine, and some of it is genuinely useful.
The Personalisation Paradox
Earlier today I attended a webinar organised by the Community for Educational Innovation (a European Commission initiative) titled Educating to Thrive in the Digital World. One of the interventions was by Julian Estevez, Professor at the University of the Basque Country, who posed a deceptively simple question: Personalised education with AI — a myth? His presentation was brief introduction for a full argument, and it was the kind of thing that immediately starts pulling threads.
Hebben we de term “Onderwijstechnologie” nog nodig?
Mijn eigen diploma is in de Onderwijstechnologie. Januszewski en Molenda (2013) definieerden dat vakgebied als "de studie en ethische praktijk van het faciliteren van leren en het verbeteren van prestaties door het creëren, inzetten en beheren van gepaste technologische processen en middelen."
Do We Still Need the Term “Educational Technology”?
My own degree is in Educational Technology. Januszewski and Molenda (2013) defined it as "the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources."
What Comes First? Pedagogy or Technology?
Conversations about pedagogy and technology in higher education tend to produce a quick consensus: pedagogy first, technology second. Define the learning goals, then choose the tools. It is a position most educators feel comfortable with, and for good reason — it keeps the focus on purpose rather than on the tool itself. What is worth exploring, though, is whether that sequence actually holds up in practice.
What Do We Actually Know About GenAI and Learning?
Every few months a new headline announces that AI is about to transform education: sometimes as breathless optimism, sometimes as creeping alarm. Both reactions share the same flaw: they are running well ahead of the evidence, and, more importantly, ahead of our current capacity to properly study the question.
Explore the Knowledge Graph
See how every note connects — an interactive map of topics, tags and ideas across the whole garden.
Open the graph →