Epic Failures and Comebacks with Learning Technology
The Epic Failures and Comebacks in Learning Technology 2026 Symposium showcased several presentations by colleagues at the University sharing their experiences of times when learning technology has failed for the intended scenario and alternative measure had to be taken to recover from this moment to ensure the learning scenario could continue to take place. Colleagues from DETTA Learning Circle and The Digital Learning team joined together to host this event and share what they had experienced and learnt from challenging scenarios using learning technology and how they overcame these challenges.
Quick link to lightning presentations
WIHEA Director, Jess Humphreys: 鈥淓pic Failures and Comebacks鈥�
Dita Amry: 鈥淥utcomes from a Guard-Railed AI Chatbot For Essay-Writing鈥�
Inma Gonzalez Mena: 鈥淲hen Digital Natives Aren't: Lessons from a WordPress Reflection Assignment鈥�
David Wright: 鈥淟essons Learned: Using Video to Provide Formative Feedback for Draft Student Work鈥�
Simon Jenkins: 鈥淓t tu, Vevox? Handling Tech Failure Live on Stage鈥�
Lessons learned from the Covid pandemic and the ensuing lockdowns included more than a few arising from the use of online tools to facilitate learning. While some of those experiences were distinctly painful(!), a few have continued to be quite valuable for certain day to day activities I perform.
One experience I would like to share relates to developing a technique for using video to provide formative feedback for draft student work, an approach that sounds complicated but which is actually relatively quick and simple to execute once you know the ropes. Students seem to find this approach helpful and often appreciate the more personal touch video lends to formative feedback. This short presentation is intended to show colleagues how to apply this technique quickly, easily and without having to make use of complex or cumbersome specialist video-recording tools or facilities.
Transcript file for the DETTA Symposium welcomeLink opens in a new window
Lessons learned from the Covid pandemic and the ensuing lockdowns included more than a few arising from the use of online tools to facilitate learning. While some of those experiences were distinctly painful(!), a few have continued to be quite valuable for certain day to day activities I perform.
One experience I would like to share relates to developing a technique for using video to provide formative feedback for draft student work, an approach that sounds complicated but which is actually relatively quick and simple to execute once you know the ropes. Students seem to find this approach helpful and often appreciate the more personal touch video lends to formative feedback. This short presentation is intended to show colleagues how to apply this technique quickly, easily and without having to make use of complex or cumbersome specialist video-recording tools or facilities.
Transcript file for the presentation by Jess HumphreysLink opens in a new window
Experience: I introduced a guard-railed AI chatbot to support essay writing for full-time MSc students. Rather than generating content, the bot acted as a tutor, critiquing submitted outlines to help students structure arguments, stay focused on the question, and demonstrate critical thinking.
Technology: A custom-configured GPT, deployed from week one in a 4 week module, designed specifically to prompt reflection and revision on essay planning.
The failure: Despite the safeguards, 18 students were referred for AI misuse involving undeclared use of external generative AI tools. Even after being invited to submit AI declarations, most lacked enough detail to separate their own work from AI-generated content. Academic Conduct Panels ultimately gave 13 students a zero mark and 5 a poor academic practice outcome.
What I'd do differently: A third of students used AI appropriately and declared it correctly, suggesting with better guidance and assessment design can avoid misuse while still encouraging AI to scaffold learning. I would encourage students to collaborate with AI, and be clearer about what is acceptable in different parts of the assessment. I would also include AI use statement & knowledge verification as part of the assessment.
Transcript file for the presentation by DitaLink opens in a new window
Georgios Kapogiannis: 鈥淲hen AI Transparency Was Not Enough: Redesigning Assessment for Creativity and Critical Judgement鈥�
This lightning talk reflects on my experience of introducing generative AI into the Project Planning, Management and Control module(requested from the module leader). Students were permitted to use AI but were required to declare its use and provide supporting evidence, creating transparency around human鈥揂I collaboration. Despite this guidance, approximately 2.5% of students were identified through the academic-misconduct process for inappropriate or undeclared AI use.
The failure demonstrated that declaration requirements alone cannot ensure responsible engagement or protect authentic learning. Fluent AI-generated content can conceal weak understanding and reduce opportunities for creativity, independent judgement and original problem-solving.
These lessons informed the design of a new Sustainability in Project Management module. Its authentic assessment uses a complex student-accommodation project, industry evidence, a collaborative client-facing presentation, formative feedback and an individually accountable report. Students must justify their methodology, examine competing stakeholder priorities, test trade-offs and produce project-specific recommendations. Generative AI may support the process, but it cannot replace evidence-based reasoning. I would now design AI safeguards into assessment from the outset, placing greater emphasis on creativity, critical thinking and thinking beyond standardised answers.
Transcript file for the presentation by Georgios Link opens in a new window
Inma Gonzalez Mena: 鈥淲hen Digital Natives Aren't: Lessons from a WordPress Reflection Assignment鈥�
This lightning talk reflects on a first-year undergraduate module that used Coventry. Domains (WordPress) to help students develop their digital identity, digital literacy, and reflective practice. While the initiative was designed to encourage year 1 students on a semester 1 module to document and reflect on their learning journey, the reality was more complicated.
A key assumption was that students would be comfortable working with web technologies. However, many students experienced technical challenges and required significant support. For some, particularly students with accessibility or neurodiversity-related needs, online guidance was difficult to navigate. As a result, both students and staff spent more time troubleshooting websites than engaging with meaningful reflection. At times, I felt more like a WordPress helpdesk than a tutor.
The experience led to several changes, including moving the module to semester 2 and embedding technical workshops within induction activities. These adjustments reduced technical barriers and enabled students to focus on the reflective aspects of the assignment. I will share lessons about digital literacy assumptions, accessibility, and why pedagogy must always come before technology.
Transcript file for the presentation by InmaLink opens in a new window
In this lightning talk, I will share my experience of using the Moodle Workshop activity in a final-year optional module to support collaborative learning and peer assessment. The activity was designed to complement in-person workshops focused on policy-related discussions.
Following these discussions, students submitted short written reflections through Moodle and engaged in peer evaluation of each other's work. The intention was to promote deeper engagement both during and after the workshop, encouraging students to reflect on their own understanding while learning from the perspectives of their peers.
A key challenge emerged in the peer assessment stage. Despite providing a carefully structured workshop design and detailed marking guidance, there was considerable variation in how students assessed one another's submissions. This resulted in significant discrepancies in marking and required substantial moderation by the teaching team. The experience highlighted the limitations of peer assessment within the Moodle Workshop tool, particularly in ensuring consistency and reliability of grading.
As a result, I discontinued the activity after one year and instead retained the in-person discussions while using Moodle Quizzes as an alternative assessment method. The talk reflects on lessons learned and considerations for future assessment design.
Transcript file for the video by DavidLink opens in a new window
Interactive polling software can be a useful tool for active learning, promising real-time engagement and instant feedback in teaching sessions. But what happens when the technology fails mid-session? In this 10-minute lightning talk, I鈥檒l share the cautionary tale of a large-group session where Vevox betrayed me in front of 200 medical students. Expecting smooth and seamless ethics case discussions, I was instead met with a sudden digital breakdown that left me sweating (probably visibly) live on stage.
This presentation moves beyond the initial panic to explore practical changes for future sessions, including testing setups under authentic classroom conditions beforehand, and enforcing a strict 30-second troubleshooting rule before pulling the plug on malfunctioning tech. We will look at what to do instead of awkwardly muttering to yourself while attempting to fix broken software, how to avoid letting the audience know that you are bombing, and how to gracefully recover when live plans don鈥檛 work out. Attendees will gain actionable strategies for managing difficult audience dynamics when software dies, helping you keep momentum and deliver an excellent (or at least a passable) teaching session.
Transcript file for the presentation by SimonLink opens in a new window
Transcript file for the Question and Answer sesssionLink opens in a new window