We (Maggie and Yun) attended the 11th Annual Digital Pedagogy Institute Conference from August 12-14, 2025. This three-day virtual conference focus on how digital technologies can be used creatively to enhance and transform teaching in higher education.
Across the sessions we attended, we found a common message: we were encouraged to rethink about how the technologies and their practices shaping our academic settings – who they include (or leave out), the hidden costs they carry, and how they can influence the way students see and engage with learning today.
Here are some of our key takeaways from DPI conference:
Critical Perspectives on Using UDL, Digital Accessibility Practices, and Accessible Pedagogies to Foster Inclusive Learning Communities in Post-Secondary
In their talk, Prof. Mariel Miller and Prof. Kim Ashbourne (University of Victoria) highlighted that while Universal Design for Learning (UDL) focuses on creating inclusive learning environments, it’s not fully considering two commitments: critical disability awareness and digital accessibility. They mentioned that UDL is sometimes treated as a one-size-fits-all solution, which misses the real challenges that students with disabilities face – things like fatigue, disrupted momentum, invisible extra workloads, or being excluded from full participation in academic settings.
To reimagine digital accessibility, they suggest integrating UDL with digital accessibility and introducing the concept: Transformative Digital Accessibility, which ensures people with disabilities can fully engage, create, and collaborate digitally. This happens when we all practice accessible digital habits and when technology is designed with accessibility in mind.
I think this discussion raises some important questions: How can UDL truly support learners with disabilities? And how exactly can we make sure digital accessibility is integrated into UDL training or practice?
An Educator’s Guide to the Environmental Impact of Gen AI
We’ve heard a lot about Gen AI’s impact on teaching and learning, but in this presentation by Mandi Goodsett (Cleveland State University), Michael Flierl (The Ohio State University), Olivia Chin (University of Tennessee Knoxville), they turned the spotlight on a side of AI we don’t often talk about: its environmental impact.
They emphasized that AI brings both pros and cons for the environment. On the positive side, AI can help design better solar cells and batteries, forecast extreme weather, and even reduce the need for costly real-world simulations. But the cost are also real – AI data centres require a large amount of energy and resources, and the equipment used to train AI contributes to e-waste.
To help navigate this topic, the speakers introduced the EARTH framework for using Gen AI:
- E: Evaluate the environmental impact of AI tools before using them.
- A: Advocate for reduced energy and resource use from companies and governments in the production of AI outputs.
- R: Reroute/Reconsider the use of AI: Is generative AI the right tool for your task, or could a smaller model work instead?
- T: Transparency matters. We need to push AI companies to be open about their energy and resource use.
- H: Help bring environmental impact into your AI conversations with others.
What stuck with me is how this talk can be used in teaching and learning: as educators, we should talk to students about AI not only in terms of what it can do, but also what it costs. I think those conversations can help students make more thoughtful choices about when and how they should use AI. The environmental side of AI may be easy to overlook, but it resonates, as we all have personal experiences with the environment and the planet.
Professors versus Influencers: Understanding learning and trust of expertise in the modern college classroom
In their talk, Bridget Haina and Shakuntala Rao (SUNY Plattsburgh) explained they were curious about how much students trusted the information they received in class compared to what they saw online. They implemented a survey that helped them understand how social media consumption affected their cynicism towards what was learned from instructors in their classes. They found that social media consumption did not have a significant impact on their cynicism but raised additional questions on what was impacting student engagement in their classes.
Their survey revealed that those enrolled in school see the value of the education that they have paid for. However, the speakers posed the question that if the student was not part of the academic community, might their answer change? Or, if you were to take a closer look at what students learn, would college classes be the top sources of information, or are social media sources more prevalent?
Want to learn more about the talks presented at DPI 2025? Check out the DPI 2025 themes and streams.