The use of technology in education is not a new thing<\/a> and neither are aspirations of \u2018enhancing\u2019 learning with technology. However, at an unprecedented scale, government policy and initiatives, institutional strategies (such as at UCL<\/a>, Oxford<\/a> and Exeter<\/a>) and forward-thinking educators see digital technology as an important enabler of the teaching and learning experience.<\/p>\n Institutions and individuals within them face a problem: The core \u2018infrastructure\u2019, the learning management system (and emails but that is a subject for another day), was not built for this. Despite ongoing claims of UX improvements, learner-centred design, and integrated experiences, the learning management system (or VLE in the UK) evidently suffers from path dependency. Driven forward by ticking the boxes of ever-growing tender feature requests, LMSs were built as all-encompassing monolithic infrastructure applications to digitise educational institutions.<\/p>\n This is not breaking news and much has been written about the LMS: many hate it a lot (try to Google it), some hate it a bit less<\/a>, some are tired of discussing it<\/a>, some hack it<\/a>, others keep the eye on the horizon<\/a>. The main criticism was put most concisely in the EDUCAUSE article on \u2018The Next Generation Digital Learning Environment\u2019<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cWhat is clear is that the LMS has been highly successful in enabling the administration of learning but less so in enabling learning itself.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why do learning management systems struggle to enable \u2018learning itself\u2019? Part of the answer lies in two fundamental design considerations.<\/p>\n First and most importantly, teaching and learning are complex activities that are fundamentally about people, not technology. As opposed to being the determining driver, technology should act as an enabler of certain ways of doing things. This means that what a product enables and encourages\u200a\u2014\u200aits affordances\u2014 are crucial.<\/p>\n Secondly, there is often a design trade-off between usability<\/em> and the number of features<\/em>. By focusing on the few educators and administrators asking for the \u2018marginal feature native to the system\u2019\u200a\u2014\u200athe wiki, the blog, the e-portfolio, the devolved admin control rights and the tracking of everything\u200a\u2014\u200awe end up with a very complex system that alienates many other educators in the process. By attempting to make everyone happy, usability is sacrificed.<\/p>\n In the case of learning management systems, the affordances are in favour of learning management<\/em> rather than engaging and active teaching and learning, and features are prioritised over usability. Regardless of the amount of new paint thrown at it, the LMS is fundamentally an evolved all-encompassing student and educator-facing system of record. This is a recipe for alienating both educators and students, and ensuring that they use this core educational technology infrastructure only because they have to\u200a\u2014\u200aand mainly for content management purposes.<\/p>\n There is an evident need to challenge the core assumptions of the LMS. To seek a more human-friendly solution that starts with the fundamentals of active, inspiring and engaging teaching and learning in digital spaces rather than with administrative problems that are now easily solved by good databases and powerful APIs (the building blocks that allow one piece of software to communicate with another). Communication platforms, here defined broadly as platforms \u2018driven\u2019 by conversations including \u2018hybrid interfaces\u2019<\/a>, have the potential to do exactly that.<\/p>\n The unique thing about communication platforms is that they largely solve the design trade-off between features and usability. A communication platform is inherently intuitive, almost \u2018frictionless\u2019: humans already know how to communicate by nature.<\/p>\n Considering the unprecedented scale of interaction and interconnectedness<\/a> happening through platforms like Facebook Messenger\/Groups, Slack and WeChat, it is beyond doubt at this point that conversational platforms strongly afford communication. This is not just \u2018technologically\u2019 important, it is also pedagogically<\/em> important\u200a\u2014\u200aanyone aiming to enable active and engaging blended learning will have to start by with better communication.<\/p>\n With integrations and \u2018API ecosystems\u2019 acting as the glue between everything from blogs and lecture recording software to assignment software and chatbots, communication platforms offer flexibility without sacrificing usability.<\/em> Conversational platforms have the potential to allow educational institutions to reap the benefits of the rich world of fit-for-purpose software\u200a\u2014\u200asoftware that does something relatively niche extremely well. Conversational platforms enable what DeBaere and Weil (2017) in their vision for the \u2018Next-Generation Digital Learning Environment\u2019 call the \u201cLego approach of plugging in modules as needed for additional functions.\u201d<\/p>\n Firstly, educators and students are already moving towards \u2018conversational\u2019 software\u2014 pedagogically and technologically. Recently, there has been an increase in the use of communication platforms, such as Facebook Groups and Slack. This is now happening at institutional scale\u200a\u2014\u200aseveral further education colleges in the UK have adopted Google Classroom<\/a> as an alternative to their LMS and BI Oslo even piloted Slack as an alternative to their LMS for 3,500 students<\/a>.<\/p>\n Secondly, because the technology is at a stage where it is possible. Mobile is ubiquitous, voice assistants are getting much better, and API-powered communication platforms are supported by some of the most powerful developer communities. WeChat and Facebook Messenger have proven it for social. Slack and Microsoft Teams have proven it for enterprise. For education, the potential is immense and largely untapped.<\/p>\nThe problem<\/h3>\n
The causes and the path to a solution: Design, pedagogy and conversational platforms<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/oeb.global\/oeb-insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Aula1-270x300.png\")
<\/p>\nWhy communication?<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/oeb.global\/oeb-insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Aula2-1024x580.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/oeb.global\/oeb-insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Aula3-275x300.png\")
Platforms such as Facebook Messenger, WeChat and Slack have proven that communication platforms and conversational UI have the potential to solve the usability-flexiblity trade-off. Aula is doing the samefor education.<\/h5>\nWhy now\u200a\u2014\u200aand\u00a0how?<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/oeb.global\/oeb-insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Aula4-285x300.png\")
Aula acts as the\u200a\u2014\u200apedagogical and technological\u200a\u2014\u200a\u2018glue\u2019 between different applications. From lecture recording software and assignment software to chatbots and student record systems.<\/h5>\n