I think there is something to be said about the way things changed and the timescales. Traditionally education was quite conservative, with periodic episodes of change (especially as new theories of learning come up). The pandemic ripped up the established rulebook, so I think, initially, everyone tried to recreate classroom in whatever cobbled together online learning space they could. As those spaces settled (or were bought in), then people began slowly to question its effectiveness, not in terms of ludditism, but with a desire to innovate and improve. I think people have engaged more with pre-existing knowledge and practice. [As an aside, I don’t think we necessarily questioned the nature of the tools we first transitioned to – cough Zoom or Teams].

As things have started to settle, especially in the second academic year, people have looked at how they could use the available tools better. They’ve started to hit the boundaries of what those tools could do (or at least the boundaries of what they thought tools could do), and instead of adapting practice, they’ve looked outside for new tools to achieve what they want. I think this is the shift. I also think universities have been to blame for this, with a huge amount of money thrown at vendors to help ‘keep students happy’. I’m quite lucky in that my institution accelerated plans to buy certain tools during the pandemic, so some thought had gone into that beforehand. Except for proctoring tools, they were an ill-judged mistake.

Overall, I agree with what you say. There are vendors looking to capitalise on the opening of purse strings in the sector, and the lack of rigour or critical questioning when it comes to the purchase of new systems. It’s tough to move quickly and do your due diligence. Maybe more of those pennies should be spent on the people who can help, rather than shiny tools and their software.