{"id":10293,"date":"2025-06-16T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-06-16T10:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/tel\/?p=10293"},"modified":"2025-06-11T13:20:36","modified_gmt":"2025-06-11T12:20:36","slug":"digifest-2025-where-today-meets-tomorrow","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/tel\/2025\/06\/16\/digifest-2025-where-today-meets-tomorrow\/","title":{"rendered":"Digifest 2025: Where today meets tomorrow!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a>
Image by ChatGPT<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The ICC in Birmingham played host to Digifest 2025 for a two-day flagship learning and technology conference from Jisc. With 900 in-person attendees and 1,700 more joining online, this year’s event boasted its biggest attendance.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Digifest’s full programme featured over 60 sessions, including keynote speakers, panels, workshops, and breakout sessions, across several halls and lecture theatres. There were also 40+ exhibitors. There was no shortage of things to see and engage with, and I must confess I visited the E-Sports stand more than I needed (for work purposes and a shot at the leaderboard).\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are four of the main themes that I took away with me. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Theme 1 – AI <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

AI = Acronym Impossible  <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

One of the repeated themes throughout the conference relating to AI was reframing the acronym itself to be more helpful in understanding its use. Professor Paul Iske\u2019s take on AI was that it should be called Assistance Intelligence, challenging us to rethink the role of technology not as a replacement, but as a tool to enhance human creativity and problem-solving. In a different session, AI was described as a sidekick rather than a replacement for teachers. The hopes were that AI could help identify struggling students, automate administrative tasks, and personalise learning experiences.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Dr Sana Khareghani asked us to think of AI as a practical tool, not a magical fix, referring to AI as artificial assistance rather than intelligence. Sana insists AI is only as powerful as the intent and integrity behind its implementation. What we need for the future of AI is stronger foundations in infrastructure, talent, and data governance.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Investment  <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In the session \u201cAI in Education: From Hype to Impact\u201d, they spoke about the lack of time for staff and students to \u2018properly\u2019 engage with AI tools. They talked about AI being like any other hardware or software: \u201cWhen you first start using it, you need to read the manual.\u201d It is felt that people are not being given the resources to play with AI and learn how to be effective and critical in its use. With AI-literacy in mind, one speaker advocated for an \u201cAI-way Code.\u201d A generic AI literacy approach supporting staff and students to use any AI tool of their choice. One of their suggestions was to offer an optional 10-credit unit on all courses where students would assess and academically scrutinise the output of AI. This would be completed at the start of a course and could then be applied to future studies.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In several sessions, the discussion turned to apprehension that investing in AI meant a loss of jobs. However, it was felt by some panellists that while concerns are valid, actual loss of employment had not been seen in their experiences. Others see AI use as an opportunity to reduce some of the administrative tasks, \u201cfreeing us to concentrate on \u2018raw\u2019 teaching and the things that we really enjoy.\u201d One of the panellists made the point that \u201cWe should aim to do less with less, instead of doing more with less… Why do we need to do more?\u201d An example of recent change created by AI automation is seen with recruitment chatbots, which are already proving a valuable tool on some institutions\u2019 websites.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As with any technology, it is the implementation that often proves most difficult, and AI is no different. In Paul Iske\u2019s keynote, he spoke of the \u201cfinal mile\u201d being where we see a lot of failure. It doesn\u2019t matter the size of the affordances of the technology, and with all the best intentions in the world, if the adoption process does not go well, then the project can still fail. Several talks spoke about \u201cBuy In\u201d AKA a Top-Down approach. Investment in the implementation of AI needs to come from all levels, especially from those at the most senior levels of management, for it to succeed. A senior champion to advocate for adoption is a powerful thing, I heard in several panels across the two days.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ethics  <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Ethical implications of AI were discussed regarding the data that users hand over. The panel felt that free access comes at a cost in real terms, as people\u2019s personal data and the information fed into an LLM is the sacrifice that is knowingly made. Both speakers talked about having their own recommended AI tools (like CoPilot at UoS), but there are no rules or policies for students using any other tools.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several panels reported the positive impact of equitable access had on students and staff. It presented opportunities for them to express themselves in different media and allowed for adaptation of some assessments. The cost of site licenses is extremely high, and not all tools are created equally. Therefore, the question is how to offer fair access to AI at the university, without asking people to forgo privacy?\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To further compound the issues facing AI use, in Dr Khareghani\u2019s keynote she spoke about the information bias in AI being a reflection of the data and lived experiences being feed into it (mainly western and developed world) and urged institutions to move from being passive users to active creators: \u201cBe an AI Maker, not an AI Taker.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A key takeaway was \u201cAI is not magic dust, it requires investment in infrastructure, training, and ethical considerations<\/strong> to be truly transformative…\u201d This seemed to be the consensus across the event. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Theme 2 – Failure  <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

FAIL – First Attempt In Learning  <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Professor Paul Iske (CFO), Chief Failure Officer, delivered an enlightening opening keynote, \u201cBrilliant failures: working together, failing together, learning together\u201d. As the founder of the Institute for Brilliant Failures, he emphasised the value of learning from setbacks.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As part of the opening section of his presentation, the audience was asked to confess their errors, lapses, and failures in just three words, which were then projected in a gigantic word cloud on the main hall screen for all to see. This underscored just how universal the experience of failure is (I had gotten a train ticket to Birmingham International instead of New Street). Iske used this information to emphasise that if we can accept our failings for everyday or mundane things, then is it possible that we can do the same for far more complex and multifaceted issues, such as trying to improve education systems? Maybe, failing at that is not such a bad thing after all.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A brilliant failure can be described as a well-prepared attempt to create value that has a different outcome than what was expected, and with that comes an opportunity to learn. Therefore, we can reframe the cost of failure by looking at the value in failing well. Iske calls this \u201cfailing forward\u201d, which is a combination of social intelligence, pattern recognition and creativity leading to failure intelligence (failing well). Using failure intelligence, you are planning for success.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Archetypes of failure <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Iske briefly touched on his methodology for failing and its sixteen archetypes. Here are just a few:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. The Junk<\/strong>: Persisting with a failing project due to prior investments, leading to further losses.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>
  2. The Elephant<\/strong>: Overcomplicating solutions, making them unwieldy and ineffective.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>
  3. The Banana Peel<\/strong>: Small oversights or errors that lead to significant negative outcomes.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>
  4. The Right Brain Hemisphere<\/strong>: Ignoring creative or intuitive insights, resulting in missed opportunities.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>
  5. The Empty Spot at the Table<\/strong>: Excluding key stakeholders from decision-making processes results in a lack of support or unforeseen issues.\u00a0<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    \"\"<\/a>
    Image by ChatGPT<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    His methodology looks really interesting and is something I am keen to explore further in the future (a potential blog post). When we plan a project, does it ever finish exactly as we planned, or did we \u2018fail\u2019 and create new ideas and possibilities along the way through divergent thinking? Improvisation and creativity are what separate humans from technology. Iske mentioned overhearing a conversation before the conference in which one of the participants said, \u201cAn AI knows everything but understands nothing\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Theme 3 – Accessibility & Inclusion <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The 4Cs <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Kellie Mote\u2019s Fireside chat on accessibility,<\/strong> for me, was one of the most impactful sessions of the event. Kellie was in conversation with Piers Wilkinson, who is the Director of the National Association of Disability Practitioners (NADP), who immediately emphasised that all solutions and policies need to use the 4 Cs<\/strong> approach:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n