Digital Accessibility Starts at Procurement

Take from this original post authored by Xavier Briche and publised by ALT, the Association for Learning Technology.

The second presentation, delivered by Sarah Sherman, Director at Bloomsbury Learning Exchange explored the challenges of embedding digital accessibility into procurement. Using real supplier responses to accessibility questions, Sarah highlighted common issues, including accessibility being offered at extra cost, reliance on overlays rather than accessible design, poor understanding of legal obligations, and accessibility features being absent from product roadmaps.

The session highlighted how accessibility testing often occurs late in procurement, placing significant demands on internal specialists. Participants also discussed how suppliers frequently focus on student-facing interfaces while overlooking accessibility barriers in staff-facing workflows.

A central theme of the presentation was the Accessibility Passport, developed through the Make Things Accessible project. Designed as a practical framework for procurement, it provides shared tools and resources that institutions can adopt rather than developing their own approaches independently.

Resources include:

• Standard contract wording
• Procurement guidance
• Tender evaluation criteria
• Accessibility matrices
• Eight key questions for suppliers

The aim is to create greater consistency across the sector, helping institutions set clear expectations and encouraging suppliers to improve accessibility standards.

Discussion focused on the benefits of collaboration between institutions and the need for stronger partnerships between accessibility specialists, learning technologists, procurement teams and senior leaders. Participants agreed that accessibility must be considered throughout the procurement lifecycle rather than treated as a final compliance check.

Why assessment in the AI age doesn't have to go the way of the dinosaurs

 Originally published on the QAA website on 13th October 2026

Professor Mark J.P. Kerrigan

Director of the SOAS Academy of Learning and Teaching (SALT)  and Professor of Educational Innovation and Futures, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

 

Dr Sian Lindsay

Academic Developer, University of Reading

 

Sarah Sherman

Director, The Bloomsbury Learning Exchange

There’s that well-known phrase that goes something like - ‘just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should’. Mark wanted to know its origins, so he turned to Google for the answer and was rapidly bombarded with AI responses all trying to be helpful. After scrolling past all the AI noise, he finally found something real to reference - a quote from the 1993 movie Jurassic Park directed by Steven Spielberg. Actor Jeff Goldblum plays a sceptical scientist, who famously quips “Yeah but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should”. Whilst we’re not trying to suggest that the explosion of AI into our lives poses exactly the same existential threat as bringing dinosaurs back from extinction(!), we have had to change and evolve the way we do things significantly and rapidly, with very little time to prepare or reflect. AI is everywhere, it can be wonderfully helpful, providing access to knowledge, but it can also really confuse things.

AI has challenged all industries and sectors, and its impact on education – in particular assessment – has been a growing concern. AI has intensified long-standing challenges and has introduced some new ones. We know that colleagues involved in the design, delivery and marking of assessments seek guidance and practical support in this space. Many (including us) would love to know how we can start it all again - design assessments that are inclusive, uphold academic standards, develop attributes that employers want and assure learning in the AI era. Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet that can address all these aspects perfectly at once, and compromises may be necessary (Corbin et al., 2025). To address this concern, SOAS is leading a QAA Collaborative Enhancement Project with six other HE institutions and the Bloomsbury Learning Exchange (BLE) to pilot, evaluate, and refine a practical Assessment Toolkit that supports educators in designing secure, inclusive, AI-aware, and future-focused assessment (Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Overview of the project

The project recognises that generative AI represents a “wicked problem” for HE: complex, evolving and never definitively solvable (Corbin et al., 2025). As TEQSA (2025) argues, assessment reform must move beyond detection toward programme-level assurance of learning through coherent, evidence- informed assessment systems. The Assessment Toolkit operationalises this by providing structured workflows and information that help programme teams secure learning strategically, rather than reactively. The project advances existing practice by bridging the gap between quality, policy and day-to-day curriculum work. Our final project outputs will include a refined toolkit, practical resources and case studies. 

In this blog post, we thought it would be useful to share what the current version of the toolkit looks like. The original toolkit at SOAS University of London is a series of interlinked PowerPoint slide decks which include (1) a Home Deck, (2) a Companion Deck and (3) six slide decks spanning different top-level assessment approaches underpinned by specific examples (Table 1). The Home Deck comprises information and general instructions, and the Companion Deck provides information on feedback approaches based on the size of the student cohort. 

Table 1: Assessment types included in the toolkit, grouped into six broad approaches

For each assessment type, the toolkit brings together analyses and practical resources to support its selection, design and use (Figure 2). These provide a conversation starter for educators and programme teams to review existing assessments, explore alternatives and discuss what will work in their context. The analyses help users consider alignment with learning outcomes and examine strengths and limitations from student, educator and generative AI perspectives. Example assignment briefs, rubrics, formative checkpoints and feedback ideas offer starting points for adaptation. They also prompt discussion about expectations for GenAI use and opportunities to develop AI literacy and relevant graduate attributes. In doing so, the toolkit responds to growing calls to rebalance assessment, giving greater attention to the processes of learning alongside the final product. It encourages educators to consider how students’ developing understanding, judgements, responses to feedback and reflections can become more visible and valued within assessment.

Figure 2: Analysis for each assessment modality

So, what have we been doing since the project started earlier this year? We have completed the project setup, created and shared a version of the toolkit with all our partners, and are recruiting programme and module teams to take part in the pilot. We have applied for and received ethical approval to conduct questionnaires and focus groups with participants, which will help us understand their experiences of the toolkit and inform future refinements before we share it at the end of the project. We have also presented our work at the SOAS Learning & Teaching Conference and the recent QAA online roadshow. We’ve been busy! 

Over the next few months, we will continue recruiting new participants and begin piloting and evaluating the toolkit - we’ll keep you updated on how we are getting along. 

References

Corbin, T., Bearman, M., Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2025). The wicked problem of AI and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2553340 [Accessed 5 October 2026].

 

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), 2025. Enacting assessment reform in a time of artificial intelligence. Canberra: TEQSA. Available at: https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-06/enacting-assessment-reform-in-a-time-of-artificial-intelligence-web.pdf [Accessed 5 October 2026].

Smart Glasses in Higher Education: Should we be worried or excited?

Authored by Elisabetta Lando, Miranda Melcher and Dom Pates from City St George's, University of London and originally posted here.

Summary

Smart glasses powered by AI and AR are gaining renewed interest in education, with potential for hands-free, guided, and immersive learning. City St George’s educational technologists ponder if the best use of this technology should be in targeted use cases only and even used Ms co-pilot to help produce this blog.

Bridging Minds: The Value of Cross-Institutional Collaboration

Manoj Singh, Senior Digital Education Consultant at Birkbeck, shares his experiences of taking part in the BLE's 'Great Minds' buddy exchange. Any BLE staff members interested in meeting colleagues working on similar projects, activities or towards common goals should get in touch with us here and we will happily arrange a session.

As a relatively new member of staff at Birkbeck, one of the valuable experiences I've had has been participating in the recent cross-institutional networking led by Sarah Sherman and Julian Bream from BLE. Through sensibly arranged introductory meetings, I've had the opportunity to connect with colleagues from City St George's and SOAS, exploring shared interests in project management and learning analytics respectively.

What made these sessions particularly meaningful for me was discovering how much we have in common. Despite working at different institutions, we're often dealing with similar challenges, implementing comparable systems, and working toward parallel goals. It's reassuring to realise that you're not alone in facing obstacles, and even more valuable is learning how others have approached (and in most cases resolved) similar issues.

For someone who values networking and knowledge sharing and who is still finding their feet in a new role, these connections have been very helpful. The meetings provided not just practical insights but also a wider perspective on how our work at Birkbeck fits within the broader landscape of higher education and particularly within the BLE. Hearing how colleagues at City St George's approach project management, or learning about SOAS's practices in learning analytics, has given me perspective and helped me understand my own work better.

A similar type of collaboration, which was also organised by the BLE, had proven essential in the past for me in a prevuios role (and to others involved). This was when a system we all used was suddenly decommissioned with little time to find a replacement. Working together across institutions was vital in overcoming this challenge. That’s why I think this new scheme lays the groundwork for establishing ongoing collaboration on a wider scale. Rather than each institution working alone and potentially repeating the same mistakes, we have ways to share knowledge, compare approaches, and learn from each other.

The value of these connections goes far beyond the initial meetings: they represent the beginning of a community of practice that will prove beneficial for years to come. Finally, this exchange of ideas can only strengthen our practice and benefit our institutions, and I hope this scheme continues and expands.

Workshopping an Effective Library Communication Strategy

Tim Spring, Academic Services Librarian at Birkbeck, shares his personal reflections and takeaways following a communications workshop he attended as part of the BLESS group.

Back in July, the Bloomsbury Library, E-Systems & Services Group (BLESS) ran a workshop focusing on developing a communication strategy for libraries. Sarah had invited Philip Pothen, a communications consultant for Higher Education, to come and run this session for us.

I came into this session as a member of Birkbeck's former Communication and Marketing Group for the Library but I have to confess, my experiences left me feeling quite cynical about ‘Comms’. I never had much interest in the strategic or structural idea behind it all – more of a ‘get it done’ type than a ‘develop a strategy’ type. After all, it’s just communicating, how hard can it be? I do it all the time!

Well, it turns out, there’s a lot more to think about than I realised.

We had a mix of colleagues from different institutions in attendance, including Birkbeck, SOAS, and the Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust. I think it’s fair to say that most of us in attendance didn’t have much experience in this area but were keen to learn some ideas about how we could improve or develop our comms strategies.

A lot of ground was covered in a very short time, and we definitely could have gone for much longer but here are some of the key ideas that came up.

What encompasses a comms strategy?

We put together a list of words and ideas trying to define what is communication and some of its key characteristics, and what is the wider context of the library (why does it exist, what are we there to do)? Some of the ideas that came from this included:

·        Communication is about making a connection with our users.

·        Communication we disseminate should be trustworthy and values driven

·        Communication is a two-way street. Who is receiving information and how? Why?

·        A library service is often at the heart of an institution, and is a significant factor in successful outcomes, whether that be student attainment, academic research, etc.

During this discussion, Philip made an interesting point that often libraries are not as confident as other departments when it comes to communicating about our impact and services, which is certainly true from my experience! How can we use an effective comms strategy to improve this?

Understanding our audience – who are they? What do want to say? How do we reach them?

For this section we split into small groups and discussed who our audiences are. Unsurprisingly, we came back and had a mammoth list including examples like undergraduates, postgraduates, researchers, lecturers, professional staff, students with disabilities, healthcare professionals, international students, senior management, etc etc.

Some topics for further thought that also came up included:

·        What kind of communication do we need for different audiences?

·        What do we call our audience – Members? Users? Something else?

·        How can we build partnerships with stakeholders to advocate for the library?

·        Do we need to make more efforts to be visible in places where our audience are at the expense of other areas?

 With such a vast range of stakeholders, how do we decide what level of communication might be needed? One idea Philip gave us was to complete a stakeholder mapping exercise:

By Zirguezi - Own work, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30927010

Let’s take the University Vice-Chancellor as an example. Her ‘Power’ would be very high up the Y-Axis, but ‘Interest’ might be somewhat low-to-middling. Communication to these users might be in the form of an annual report. A lecturer might be somewhere in the middle of the chart. Maybe they could receive some sort of termly/monthly update, regular support through emails etc. The list goes on, but this sounded like a great exercise to help identify who our audience is, but also how we might want to communicate with them.

Blue Sky Thinking!

The final exercise we had time for was a bit more light-hearted and idealistic focusing on ‘blue sky thinking’. Imagine we didn’t have any resource constraints – what would we do to improve our communications? You won’t be surprised that most ideas involved more money…

·        Hire specialist staff to work on library communications.

·        Pay students (generously) to take part in surveys, focus groups, etc. to identify where we could improve services.

·        Mandatory library induction for staff and students as part of corporate induction.

·        Various brochures, leaflets, bookmarks, etc. to promote the library at events and high-quality digital marketing. Professional images and graphics, etc.

Whilst these ideas aren’t likely to suddenly happen in the imminent future, it was a pleasant exercise to end on, and who knows? If we ever find ourselves in a situation where we can afford to try any of these, at least we already have some ideas in mind!

We wrapped things up shortly after and even though I’ve tried to summarise what we went over, there was just so much content, I’ve missed a lot out! Overall, it was a very productive session and I thought Philip did a great job guiding a group of ‘amateurs’ in this area and we all came away with something useful.

Now for the actual hard part – implementing all of these ideas!